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?
This usage is intentionally extremely limited because the court recognizes that it is so prejudicial. As an example: evidence that the defendant killed person #1 may be used to show the motive for killing person #2 who was a witness. On the other hand evidence that a person has 10 convictions for theft may not be used in a trial even for an identical theft because it is so prejudicial.
Also,what thoughts (if any) do you have regarding the case mentioned in Post #30?
I certainly understand the court's thinking on that but you have to admit that it is an loophole cops could drive a truck through.
Cops in other high crime countries manage to avoid killing their citizens by the hundreds. Maybe we should acknowledge that there is a better way.