Originally Posted by Valsdad
Originally Posted by Hastings
Originally Posted by Valsdad
Anyone taking bets the prosecution motions to quash "the victim's" background on the premise it might be prejudicial to the jury if this all goes to trial anyway?
What's wrong with bringing up the evidence of the "victims" proclivity for violence? In this country the system is supposed to be skewed in favor of the accused. The defense lawyer ought to be able to show the jury just what a dirtbag his client killed.
It seems to be rather common, from what folks who have served on juries tell me, and what I've read, that many times the prosecution does not want the "victim's" past brought into the story. Only the present events. The defense will have to show there are underlying issues and most likely, the judge in the case will have to make a ruling before the jury can hear any of it.Which is why, in this internet age, it seems to me it would be hard to seat a jury that hasn't heard anything about the "victim's" past. Just look at what we have all found out here thanks to some searching by a member or two.
I've sat in on several jury selections. You would be surprised how ignorant is a large portion of the population. Intelligent people are often struck by one side or the other because they might just think for themselves and stick to their guns during deliberations.

Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you."