Steven H. Gifis says in his Law Dictionary, Barron's Legal Guides, talks about how the Constitution says "Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." A bill of attainder is a act of parliament or legislation that declares a person guilty without a trial. They started doing it in England in 1321. And they are very unfair. No trial, no jury, no lawyer even. The Supreme Court has said the right applies in other ways. Like in 1946, in U. S. v. Lovett, with a law that said the federal government cannot deny employment to certain people because they disagreed with their political views. Both of these rights have applied to the states from the start, and even predate the Bill of Rights. Ex post facto is Latin for "out after the fact". A fact is a deed or thing that someone has done. No one can be punished for an act by a law passed after they did it, for any reason. George Washington and the rest would tell us, there are no exceptions to this rule. Not even a "compelling state interest", whatever that is (Washington would say). Also, the definition of a crime can't be changed, obviously. Or the penalty. The statute of limitations is considered part of the penalty, you know. On another message board someone said, no it isn't. But others said, well, yes it actually is. And, the Supreme Court has ruled, according to Gifis, all the rules of evidence will still apply. It doesn't matter how unimportant they seem. The prosecution was supposed to wear latex gloves to present the evidence? And latex is outlawed in that state? Tough, the Court would say. Also the way testimony is presented must be the same. If, it is the defendant's right, of course. On the other hand, if something, really that was declared unconstitutional, originally applied, like the death penalty, it no longer applies. Also, as I said, the right belongs to the defendant. So the state can always lessen a punishment that once applied or even remove it.
