Roy Moore's campaign says a Doug Jones campaign ad about Moore's opinions in three cases involving sexual crimes misrepresents Moore's record when he was chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

On the three cases, Moore wrote opinions that differed from the prevailing decisions of the court and that were favorable to the offenders.

"Alabama, there's a pattern," the ad says before showing images of the opinions in the three cases. "Court documents, real facts. Roy Moore's disturbing conduct."

Moore's campaign says the ad amounts to "blatant lies" and says Moore did not disagree with the convictions in any of the three cases.

Moore's written opinions in the cases show that in two of the three, Moore believed the Supreme Court should have reviewed the admissibility of evidence the defendants wanted to introduce to try to show that their victims were lying. In both cases, six of the other eight justices disagreed.

In the third case, Moore wrote that the defendant should not have been convicted on one of two charges involving sodomy of a child. The other eight justices disagreed, overturning a decision by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals on the second charge.

In a press release on Friday, the Moore campaign said, "We are demanding that Doug Jones immediately retract his blatant lies and apologize for misrepresenting Judge Moore's judicial record. All stations should immediately remove this deceitful ad from their rotations."

AL.com has previously reported on Moore's rulings in the three cases, as well as some other cases: How did Roy Moore rule on sex abuse, sodomy court cases?

Here's what the Jones ad says and what Moore wrote in his opinions on the three cases.

The ad: "In a 2014 case involving a man convicted of abusing two underage girls, Judge Roy Moore disagreed and wrote the dissenting opinion."

The case: Sherman Fitzgerald Tate was accused of "deviate sexual intercourse" with two 15-year-girls who were students in a Mobile youth advocate program where he worked.

In Tate's defense, he wanted the trial court to allow evidence about an alleged romantic relationship between the two girls who accused him. Alabama courts do not allow evidence about a rape victim's sexual activity with third persons, Moore noted in his dissenting opinion. But that prohibition should not have applied to evidence concerning a relationship between two accusing witnesses who may have colluded, Moore wrote.

"Tate's knowledge of the romantic relationship, coupled with the fact that Tate informed the mother of one of the victims of that relationship, would make the proposed cross-examination relevant to show that the victims had possibly fabricated the charge against Tate," Moore wrote in his dissent from the court's 6-3 decision.

Justices Glenn Murdock and Tom Parker also dissented from the majority opinion.

The ad: "In a 2015 case involving a man who pleaded guilty to raping an underage girl, Roy Moore dissented again."

The case: The defendant, David Paul Pittman, pleaded guilty to second-degree rape.

The trial court denied the request of Pittman's lawyer to cross-examine the victim and her parents to try to show that she was sexually active and her parents suspected her of being sexually active, giving her reason to falsely accuse Pittman. According to Moore's opinion, the district attorney in the case originally alleged that Pittman gave the victim the herpes virus. But Pittman tested negative for the virus.

Pittman asked the Supreme Court to review the trial court's decision to deny the admissibility of the evidence. The Supreme Court, on a 6-3 vote, declined. Moore dissented.

In rape cases, Alabama courts generally exclude evidence about the sexual history of victims. But Moore wrote that rule does not apply if the exclusion violates the constitutional rights of the accused.

"I believe Pittman's constitutional rights to be confronted with witnesses against him, protected by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, may have been violated," Moore wrote.

Justices Murdock and Parker also dissented from the majority opinion.

The ad: "And Roy Moore was the only Supreme Court justice who sided with a felon convicted of sexual abuse of a child at a day care center."

The case: Court records say Eric Lemont Higdon was working as a 17-year-old intern at a Jefferson County day care center in 2012. Higdon was accused of performing oral sex on a 4-year-old boy in his care.

Higdon was convicted on two counts -- first-degree sodomy of a child under 12 and first-degree sodomy by forcible compulsion. Higdon appealed, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction on the first charge but reversed it on the second charge, finding that the state had failed to prove Higdon used forcible compulsion.

Forcible compulsion is defined in the state law as: "Physical force that overcomes earnest resistance or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury to himself or another person."

The Court of Criminal Appeals, in overturning the second charge, followed a precedent from a 2002 case that found that the element of forcible compulsion could not be established by an "implied" threat if the offender is a juvenile, like Higdon.

The state appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals decision, overruling the 2002 precedent and finding that an "implied" threat could be used to establish forcible compulsion even in cases where the offender is not an adult. The key factor in establishing "implied" threat was the perspective of the child victim, not the age of the offender, the court found.

Moore was the lone dissenter, writing in his opinion that there was no evidence of an implied threat of serious physical injury or death in the case. Moore wrote that the court was wrongly "stepping into the shoes of the legislature" by expanding the application of "implied" threat to cover crimes committed by children against other children.

"Although this may be a noble cause in certain situations, policymaking is beyond the role of this court," Moore wrote.

Higdon's conviction on first-degree sodomy, which was upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeals, was not an issue before the Supreme Court, and Moore noted that Higdon was sentenced to 23 years in prison.

"Sodomy is an abhorrent crime and should be strictly punished," Moore wrote.

"In all three Supreme Court cases mentioned in Doug Jones's latest campaign ad, he blatantly misrepresents the facts and my judicial record," Moore said in the press release. "I did not disagree with the convictions of the defendants in those cases."



Moore also noted that in the Tate and Pittman cases, "two of the most conservative justices on the Court," Parker and Murdock, also dissented from the decision to deny review of the case.