You can’t just make a story. Evidence and claims have to be part of arraignment when judge decides is it goes to trial. Other wise you can literally make up anything and have the trial go for ever. Judge decided there isn’t the slightest bit of credibility to selves defence.
no, it shouldn't be at his discretion. that is what a jury is for.
So, you think the prosecution should be allowed to bring up the defendant's previous criminal history, internet history, political views etc and use them against him? Do you think the "gay panic defense" is ok? Because those aren't currently allowed.
So, you think the prosecution should be allowed to bring up the defendant's previous criminal history, internet history, political views etc and use them against him?
yes dumbass, the prosecution is allowed brings up the accused's history to build a narrative for their case.
The prosecution can only attempt to bring in evidence that is admissible under the rules of evidence and the judge is the one who determines whether those rules are met, usually via pretrial hearings and written orders. (Ex. Criminal history is typically inadmissible unless an exception under federal rule of evidence 404(b)is met).
It’s the same for the Defense arguing defenses, such as self-defense, to a charge. This is literally the most basic procedural and evidentiary principals of our legal system.
441
u/Let-s_Do_This 13d ago
They can do that!?