[Straight Vermonter]

Do you have a fertile enough imagination to picture various things that a "really bad guy" might have done *before* the camera started rolling?

Sure, so lets focus on what happened at that time and disregard irrelevant things like the record of the dead man or the cop. That simply prejudices our thinking about the incident in question.

[Gay State Conservative]

Sure,so lets focus on what happened at that time and disregard irrelevant things like the record of the dead man or the cop.

Hmmm...where to begin? All right...a simple question. Why is it that,in some trials at least,information about a defendant's past convictions (or matters concerning the defendant that are awaiting prosecution) are allowed to be brought up by the prosecution? Of course when such a thing happens it would mean that the judge determined that it was both relevant *and* did no unfairly bias the jury against the defendant.

Also,what thoughts (if any) do you have regarding the case mentioned in Post #30?