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
Other comments have established that you are asking about prejudicial evidence.
Other comments have also addressed propensity and character evidence.
Allow me to address specifically an example of prejudicial evidence. Say the accused is charged with possessing child pornography. The prosecutor would have to prove that the material was child pornography and that the accused possessed it. But if at trial, the accused concedes that the material is child pornography, the nature of the material becomes uncontentious at trial and therefore the material would not be probative of anything at issue. Therefore, the material would be purely prejudicial and possibly inadmissible.
Latest Answers