well, my note was how I understand the law
the idea being to test the prosector’s evidence of what the accused actually may have DONE
and not prejudice a jury
it is, after all, just possible that the defendant is a total Nazi slimeball (sure looks that way) but maybe he did not do the crime of which he is accused
juries can be prejudiced or inflamed by being shown certain inflammatory things like, say, swaztikas or KKK costumes or
“Piss Christ” or whatever like that...
the law wants a non=prejudiced jury
anyway....that’s how I understand it.
I DO UNDERSTAND your POV....
Best,
fhc
Reflecting on your point, you’re probably right, but my experience on a jury for a month demonstrated at least in my area that a pretty savvy jury was chosen (out of close to 300).
More specifically, if the jury has a say in the sentence, that’s where the tats should come into play.