sexually assaulted KI. and then later, in a series of telephone calls from the jail, he asked or encouraged K.I. to lie about this matter and say that no sexual assault had occurred. During her testimony at the witness tampering trial, K.I. repeatedly asserted that Douglas had, in fact, sexually assaulted her. For these reasons, neither of the arguments raised in Douglas's brief has any merit. The real problem with this evidence, as Judge Thompson noted at the pre-trial hearing of June 14th, is that evidence of a criminal conviction is inadmissible hearsay under Alaska law if it is offered to prove that the defendant actually engaged in the conduct that would justify that conviction. See Spenard Action Committee v. Lot 3, Block 1, Evergreen Subdivision, 902 P.2d 766, 780 (Alaska 1995) (<HOLDING>); F.T. v. State, 862 P.2d 857, 863-64 (Alaska
holding that the alaska rules of evidence articulate a policy against admitting criminal judgments as evidence of the underlying conduct holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding that the prohibition against use of evidence of a defendants prior criminal conduct to infer bad character and action in conformity therewith on the occasion in question does not mandate exclusion of all evidence regardless of how otherwise legally probative containing any reference to past criminal conduct holding that a violation of the rules of professional conduct may not be used as evidence and citing terry cove north for the proposition that the sole remedy for a violation of the rules of professional conduct was the imposition of disciplinary measures