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
I think you’re referring to evidence that is too prejudicial relative to its probative value. An extreme example is if you are trying someone for tax fraud, and the prosecutor wants to introduce evidence that he once raped someone to show that he’s untrustworthy. The judge would exclude that because the evidence of the rape would probably overwhelm the jury – it’s such a horrible crime relative to tax fraud – that they would have a hard time focusing on the evidence and would convict the defendant to punish him for the rape. This is why character evidence is usually not allowed, and prior convictions are only allowed if they are very very similar to the crime being charged.
Latest Answers