Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Venom
patrickt,
Why would or do you think/say that. That video is simply a public act, "matter of record" and can be entered into any court of law, civil or criminal that I know of?
Just really curious?
DV
|
It's a good question. The overriding general rule in American courts is that "prior bad acts" are inadmissable in both civil and criminal trials unless they fall in to a few exceptions. The reasoning behind that general rule is that the prejudicial impact of prior bad acts will outweigh the probative value of the evidence itself. It's also basically a "relevance" issue as well, just because you've been bad in the past doesn't mean you were bad today. Now, let's just suppose Native1 got in to an accident with this Cobra and the issue before the jury was whether he was driving negligently, or even recklessly, with his Cobra. If that video got in he's already got two and a half strikes against him with most juries (criminal or civil). Depending on the state, most judges would not let that video be played during the trial because it would be so prejudicial (and not very probative at all). But of course the plaintiff's attorney really wants the jury to see it because it paints Native1 as a reckless nut. One way you might be able to get it in is to allege that the Cobra has limited visibility and try and get the video in front of the jury with a "limiting instruction." The judge would tell the jury "You should not allow the video of Native1 doing 100MPH on that street influence your decision as to whether he was negligent, rather you should only let it influence your decision as to the visibility out of the car." Of course, the jury only half-listens to that and plaintiff's attorney will refer to the video as "defendant's 100mph flight down main street last year," or something like that, until the Judge tells him to quit doing that. Make sense?
