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
The standard isn’t “too punitive” – it’s “unfairly prejudicial.” Direct evidence of involvement in a crime is almost never considered unfairly prejudicial. Indirect evidence that someone may have a propensity to commit a crime, but not directly related to the specific crime alleged, may be considered more prejudicial than probative.
As an example, assume someone has been accused (not convicted, just accused) of stealing a car sometime in their past. Today they’re on trial for robbing a bank. Generally, it would be considered far more prejudicial than probative to allow the prosecution to bring up the prior accusation. It’s not a conviction, and it’s only related/similar to the alleged bank robbery in that they’re both theft crimes. So it doesn’t really help establish that the accused is guilty of the bank robbery. But a member of the jury could easily conclude he accused is a career criminal (or at least a repeat offender) if they hear about a prior accusation.
Now if the accused has robbed multiple banks in the past, then while those past incidences don’t really establish that they robbed another bank, they are far more probative than a factually unrelated accusation. Generally, the prior bank robberies would be admitted into evidence.
Latest Answers