Should judges be able to exclude relevant evidence that may incite bias? Why or why not? Give examples of unfair prejudice
What will be an ideal response?
Opinions will vary. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice. Simply put, unfair or undue prejudice refers to anything that could encourage a fact finder (e.g., jury member) to develop an adverse opinion before having sufficient knowledge of relevant facts. This does not mean damage to the opponent's case because probative information from opposing counsel is necessarily designed to cast doubt on the other's, nor does it infer that information that evokes an emotional response is to be discarded.Items that tend to invoke prejudice or bias include the introduction of past crimes or bad acts by the defendant or gruesome photographs of the crime scene. The presiding judge determines the admissibility of potentially prejudicial evidence.
You might also like to view...
In Cleveland, the domination of the "Four" is clear, with __________ such as the Polizzis and Romanos clearly in a subservient position
a. Clevelanders b. Irish c. Welsh d. Italians
A Ponzi scheme attempts to cheat people by:
A. selling stocks in nonexistent companies to investors. B. selling worthless real estate to investors. C. paying original investors with money from new investors. D. creating an investment scheme that targets the elderly.
Abandonment is a valid defense, in those jurisdictions that recognize it as such, only when the accused has a genuine change of heart about committing the crime and clearly manifests the desire to abandon the criminal enterprise entirely.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
The consensus view of crime is the belief that the majority of citizens in a society share common ideas and work toward a common good
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false