Molyneux

Molyneux (pronounced mol-un-ewe)

(1) A habitational surname of Norman origin, almost certainly from the town of Moulineaux-sur-Seine, in Normandy.

(2) A variant of the Old French Molineaux (an occupational surname for a miller).

(3) An Anglicized form of the Irish Ó Maol an Mhuaidh (descendant of the follower of the noble).

(4) In law in the state of New York, as the “Molineux Rule”, an evidentiary rule which defines the extent to which a prosecutor may introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts or crimes, not to show criminal propensity, but to “establish motive, opportunity, intent, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.”

(5) In philosophy, as the “Molyneux Problem”, a thought experiment which asks:”If someone born blind, who has learned to distinguish between a sphere and a cube by touch alone, upon suddenly gaining the power of sight, would they be able to distinguish those objects by sight alone, based on memory of tactile experience?”

Pre 900: The French surname Molyneux was from the Old French and is thought to have been a variant of De Molines or De Moulins, both linked to "Mill" (Molineaux the occupational surname for a miller) although the name is believed to have been habitation and form an unidentified place in France although some genealogists have concluded the de Moulins came from Moulineaux-sur-Seine, near Rouen, Normandy.  Despite the continental origin, the name is also much associated with various branches of the family in England and Ireland, the earliest known references pre-dating the Norman Conquest (1066).  The alternative spelling is Molineux.

The "Molyneux Problem" is named after Irish scientist and politician William Molyneux (1656–1698) who in 1688 sent a letter to the English physician & philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), asking: Could someone who was born blind, and able to distinguish a globe and a cube by touch, be able to immediately distinguish and name these shapes by sight if given the ability to see?  Obviously difficult to test experimentally, the problem prompted one memorable dialogue between Locke and Bishop George Berkeley (1685–1753 (who lent his name, pronounced phonetically to the US university) but it has long intrigued those from many disciplines, notably neurology and psychology, because sight is such a special attribute, the eyes being an outgrowth of the brain; the experience of an adult brain suddenly being required to interpret visual input would be profound and certainly impossible to imagine.  Philosophers since Locke have also pondered the problem because it raises issues such as the relationship between vision and touch and the extent to which some of the most basic components of knowledge (such as shape) can exist at birth or need entirely to be learned or experienced.

The Molineux Rule in the the adversarial system 

The Molineux Rule comes from a decision handed down by the Court of Appeals of New York in the case of People v Molineux (168 NY 264 (1901)).  Molineux had at first instance been convicted of murder in a trial which included evidence relating to his past conduct.  On appeal. the verdict was overturned on the basis that as a general principle: “…in both civil and criminal proceedings, that when evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a person is offered for the purpose of raising an inference that the person is likely to have committed the crime charged or the act in issue, the evidence is inadmissible.”  The rationale for that is it creates a constitutional safeguard which acts to protect a defendant from members of a jury forming an assumption the accused had committed the offence with which they were charged because of past conduct which might have included being accused of similar crimes.  Modified sometimes by other precedent or statutes, similar rules of evidentiary exclusion operate in many common law jurisdictions.  It was the Molineux Rule lawyers for former film producer Harvey Weinstein (b 1952) used to have overturned his 2020 conviction for third degree rape.  In a 4:3 ruling, the court held the trial judge made fundamental errors in having “…erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose.” and therefore the only “...remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial.”

Harvey Weinstein and others.

Reaction to the decision of the appellate judges was of course swift and the opinion of the “black letter” lawyers was the court was correct because “…we don't want a court system convicting people based on testimony about allegations with which they’ve not been charged.”, added to which such evidence might induce a defendant not to submit to the cross-examination they’d have been prepared to undergo if only matters directly relevant to the charge(s) had been mentioned in court.  Although the Molineux Rule has been operative for well over a century, some did thing it surprising the trial judge was prepare to afford the prosecution such a generous latitude in its interpretation but it should be noted the Court of Appeal divided 4:3 so there was substantial support from the bench that what was admitted as evidence did fall within what are known as the “Molineux exceptions” which permit certain classes of testimony in what is known as “character evidence”.  That relies on the discretion of the judge who must weigh the value of the testimony versus the prejudicial effect it will have on the defendant.  In the majority judgment, the Court of Appeal made clear that in the common law system (so much of which is based on legal precedent), if the trial judge’s decision on admissibility was allowed to stand, there could (and likely would) be far-reaching consequences and their ruling was based on upholding the foundations of our criminal justice system in the opening paragraphs: "Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality. It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict."

The strict operation of the Molineux Rule (which this ruling will ensure is observed more carefully) does encapsulate much of the core objection to the way courts operate in common law jurisdictions.  The common law first evolved into something recognizable as such in England & Wales after the thirteenth century and it spread around the world as the British Empire grew and that included the American colonies which, after achieving independence in the late eighteenth century as the United States of America, retained the legal inheritance.  The common law courts operate on what is known as the “adversarial system” as opposed to the “inquisitorial system” of the civil system based on the Code Napoléon, introduced in 1804 by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815) and widely used in Europe and the countries of the old French Empire.  The criticism of the adversarial system is that the rules are based on the same principle as many adversarial contests such as football matches where the point of the rules is to ensure the game is decided on the pitch and neither team has any advantage beyond their own skill and application.

That’s admirable in sport but many do criticize court cases being conducted thus, the result at least sometimes being decided by the skill of the advocate and their ability to persuade.  Unlike the inquisitorial system where the object is supposed to be the determination of the truth, in the adversarial system, the truth can be something of an abstraction, the point being to win the case.  In that vein, many find the Molineux Rule strange, based on experience in just about every other aspect of life.  Someone choosing a new car, a bar of chocolate or a box of laundry detergent is likely to base their decision from their knowledge of other products from the same manufacturer, either from personal experience or the result of their research.  Most consumer organizations strongly would advise doing exactly that yet when the same person is sitting on a jury and being asked to decide if an accused is guilty of murder, rape or some other heinous offence, the rules don’t allow them to be told the accused has a history of doing exactly that.  All the jury is allowed to hear is evidence relating only to the matter to be adjudicated.  Under the Molineux Rule there are exceptions which allow “evidence of character” to be introduced but as a general principle, the past is hidden and that does suit the legal industry which is about winning cases.  The legal theorists are of course correct that the restrictions do ensure an accused can’t unfairly be judged by past conduct but for many, rules which seem to put a premium on the contest rather than the truth must seem strange.