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
Imagine you’re playing a game with your friends, and someone brings up a silly mistake you made in kindergarten. Sure, it’s true, but it’s not really fair to judge your current gaming skills based on that! In court, if evidence is too “ouchy” and makes the defendant look way worse than they are, it’s like bringing up that kindergarten goof—it might not be allowed to keep things fair and focused on the real case.
Latest Answers