Wow - I think this judge missed Evidence 101. Sure the evidence is prejudicial to the defense - because its probative value is devastating! He seems to have missed the first part of the balancing test in their statute (which is similar to that under the US Rules of Evidence). So I guess a confession would be just too "prejudicial" under his logic. Unbelieveable!!!
Exactyly. The key word is "unfair" prejudice. How is any of this evidence "unfairly" prejudicial.
See MTR;-)
Exactly! Only if prejudice outweighs probative value....which cannot be said in this case. The probative value is MONSTER-SIZED.
Oh, and by the way, Judge Whealy, "prejudice" is prejudging, based on facts or information learned BEFORE (pre?) the trial, not material evidence presented AT trial.
The guarantee of a fair trial is not a guarantee of a chance to be found not guilty regardless of the facts. Good Lord, what a moron.