Quote:
Originally Posted by TarukShmaruk
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Frankly I don't think marijuana use has any real impact on someone's aggression, but drug use is ALWAYS considered in any crime like this. It seems odd that they'd want the jury to ignore it, yet allow the testimony.
I do find the judge to be a complete coward in not throwing the case out. O'Mara is right - the prosecution hasn't provided enough evidence in the SLIGHTEST to allow for a murder 2 conviction, and has already rested its case
|
What Dolic is referring to is Rule of Evidence 403 which is:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rule 403
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
|
The judge is the sole gatekeeper of ALL evidence to be admitted. ANY evidence is relevant and admissible if it in ANY way makes the issues in question more or less likely to be true. However, the judge has the power to throw out relevant evidence if the risk of prejudice outweighs the "probative value." Which simply means "sure maybe he was high and it had a 1% chance of affecting his behavior. But come on the jury can't weigh that 1% they're gonna think he was high and that 1% just isn't worth it."
@ Dolic:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]