I plan on posting in other relevant subs as well. When a judge disallows potential evidence as being more punitive than probative, how is that a thing? If there is proof or a fact that could help determine a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, why would you ever not let that into evidence? “Too punitive”, isn’t that the point?
In: Other
To the extent the other comments are addressing “propensity” or “other acts” evidence, technically that’s a different rule than what you’re asking about here (danger of unfair prejudice). The rule itself talks about evidence that is unfairly prejudicial, confuses the issues, misleads the jury, wastes time or needlessly presents cumulative evidence. There is also a whole separate rule that says only relevant evidence can be presented.
So, in order, you ask (1) is the evidence relevant; (2) if so, does it pose a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion or so on; (3) is it improper character evidence; (4) does it violate some other rule (e.g. hearsay).
Latest Answers