4 ms·

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, information from unrelated cases is often excluded from trials. For example, you generally cannot discuss a victim's pri

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, information from unrelated cases is often excluded from trials. For example, you generally cannot discuss a victim's prior sexual history in a rape trial, etc. The debate, then, would be about which cases such exclusions should be appropriate in and which not. There's general agreement that neither "all" nor "none" is an appropriate answer.

merpnderp 6y ago
But the cop isn't on trial, so why does the prosecutor get to hide facts about them from the jury?
- downerending 6y ago
  IANAL, but as above, rape victims aren't on trial either. So perhaps for similar reasons.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    I realize you were trying to explore a legal technicality but the inadvertent equivalence of law enforcement with sexual vulnerability doesn't read well at all.
    - downerending 6y ago
      Not sure I follow your point, but for what it's worth rape and murder seem about equally bad in my book, and I think all violent crimes should draw life in prison without parole.
seiferteric 6y ago
Isn't evidence that establishes a witnesses credibility relevant and allowed? Wouldn't this information ruin their credibility?
- greggyb 6y ago
  Generally character evidence is avoided in most cases. Often, character evidence that is negative against an individual is excluded as unduly prejudicial. Trials determine legal facts and judge whether these facts constitute a crime or liability (depending on whether a criminal or civil case). What a person is like is not a legal fact. Even so far as "being the type of person who has been convicted of a crime in the past" is not a legal fact in a case of "did this person do this new thing?" There are two common exceptions. The first is establishing the bona fides of an expert witness - you want to establish the individual as an expert in the eyes of the court. Only an expert may opine (offer an opinion) regarding facts to which they were not a witness. Lay witnesses may only testify to facts which they have observed. The second is with regard to truthfulness, as you have mentioned. If a witness's credibility can be called into question, then this can cast doubts on the veracity of their testimony. Having an established history of lying, or having perjured oneself in the past can be valid character evidence to cast doubt on testimony.
pavon 6y ago
Yes, but in those cases it is the judge who decides what information will and will not be allowed to be shown to the jury. There is no legitimate reason for the DA to unilaterally decide to withhold relevant information from the defendant and judge.

merpnderp 6y ago

But the cop isn't on trial, so why does the prosecutor get to hide facts about them from the jury?

downerending 6y ago
IANAL, but as above, rape victims aren't on trial either. So perhaps for similar reasons.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  I realize you were trying to explore a legal technicality but the inadvertent equivalence of law enforcement with sexual vulnerability doesn't read well at all.
  - downerending 6y ago
    Not sure I follow your point, but for what it's worth rape and murder seem about equally bad in my book, and I think all violent crimes should draw life in prison without parole.

seiferteric 6y ago

Isn't evidence that establishes a witnesses credibility relevant and allowed? Wouldn't this information ruin their credibility?

greggyb 6y ago
Generally character evidence is avoided in most cases. Often, character evidence that is negative against an individual is excluded as unduly prejudicial. Trials determine legal facts and judge whether these facts constitute a crime or liability (depending on whether a criminal or civil case). What a person is like is not a legal fact. Even so far as "being the type of person who has been convicted of a crime in the past" is not a legal fact in a case of "did this person do this new thing?" There are two common exceptions. The first is establishing the bona fides of an expert witness - you want to establish the individual as an expert in the eyes of the court. Only an expert may opine (offer an opinion) regarding facts to which they were not a witness. Lay witnesses may only testify to facts which they have observed. The second is with regard to truthfulness, as you have mentioned. If a witness's credibility can be called into question, then this can cast doubts on the veracity of their testimony. Having an established history of lying, or having perjured oneself in the past can be valid character evidence to cast doubt on testimony.

pavon 6y ago

Yes, but in those cases it is the judge who decides what information will and will not be allowed to be shown to the jury. There is no legitimate reason for the DA to unilaterally decide to withhold relevant information from the defendant and judge.