Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch
Okay, thanks, reading things on an iPhone caused me to miss that. But if he testified or argued the last thing ("they're doing them"), isn't that a mistrial? If the lyrics are offered for a non-truth purpose to show the reasonableness of the listener's state of mind (a theory of relevance that remains dubious to me) why in the hell is the defendant allowed to argue truth? All of this shows why it's way more prejudicial than probative -- it's admissible to show my state of mind, says the defendant, but now that I've got it in I'm allowed to run with it for a truth purpose and as character evidence? I. Don't. Think. So. Counsellor.
|
Right. Because when the defense is "I honestly believed that this person was a threat to me," then whether the defendant watched the guy singing about being a Crip and breaking someone's jaw for fun, or whether the defendant watched the guy reciting Little Bo' Peep to a class of first-graders, is really irrelevant and utterly non-probative.
As is the defendant's own experience with gang members.
"Q. Sir, you are claiming that you acted in self defense. Did you think this person was going to attack you?"
"A. Yes."
"Q. Why?"
"Pros.: Objection, Your Honor!!! More prejudical than probative!"
"Judge Atticus: Sustained."
Overuse. Of. Periods. Is. Not. Convincing.
