I have a question regarding this CNN article HERE regarding a well known case of a shooting/murder in Detroit.
In the case the defense wants to submit photos of the victim that paint her in a very gangster/aggressive (selfies of her with gang signs, pointing guns, cash and bricks of weed).
This motion has been denied several times, my questions are as follows:
Why would this be denied? From my law and order watching I gather it is something along the lines of “it would prejudice the jury” but isn’t the point of both the prosecution and defense to make a case?
What is the legal grounds for this denial?
It seems that in some cases this type of “information” is allowed, other times it is not. Shouldn’t the law be a little more black and white on it?
It seems very odd to me that instead of trying to ACTUALLY determine if the shooter is a racist/murderer that one side is is trying to paint the victim as “nice” as possible which in fact may not be the case at all.
How is suppressing who the victim was OR ANY INFORMATION which will thus impact the jury one way or another true justice? I would say the same thing if the prosecution found selfies of the the defendant toting his shotgun with some confederate flag or other racist symbols or action.
I know I am being naive and I am certainly not a lawyer, but I am very curious about this as that information would most certainly impact my decision if I were a jury member.
The standard is “more prejudicial than probative.” Is there any evidence that she was dressed that way when she came to the Defendant’s porch that night? Did she do gang related “stuff” on his porch? Is there evidence that the Defendant knew her prior to this?
If not, then a good case can be made that such photos don’t help the jury at all and only serve to trash the victim.
ETA: From the article, the Defendant admits that he just saw a “figure” at shot at it by accident. It is irrelevant how the victim was dressed, if she was a gang member, or a racist.
Seems to me that information about a person’s life away from the crime is irrelevant. As a jury, you are not supposed to care about what the victim or the accused has done in the past or what kind of tattoos they have or so on; the jury is supposed to care about the crime only. As far as I know, pictures of the accused from the past are not relevant, ever. Same with the victim.
The underlying principle is as jtgain notes: the probative value of the evidence versus its prejudicial effect.
Basically, what the court is looking at is (1) whether the information is relevant, and (2) if so, is the jury likely to draw inferences from it that we don’t want them to?
The easy way to look at this is to consider rape shield laws. Nearly every state now prohibits admission of evidence of how a rape victim was dressed. In the past, defense attorneys would introduce this sort of information and tell the jury (or imply) that the victim’s short skirt meant she was “asking for it”. As a society, we have basically decided that such tactics weren’t cool (even though the defendants might legitimately have believed that skimpy clothing implied consent).
This particular information could be relevant. The victim’s appearance might have affected the defendant. If he saw a person with a blue bandana and gang tattoos the jury might find that he was justified in shooting on sight (versus, say, a girl scout with an armload of cookies).
However, this defendant admits he didn’t see anything much of the victim before he shot her. So her appearance isn’t relevant. Thus, the only inference the jury might draw is that the victim is a bad person and we’re better off without her. This is not the sort of conclusion we want the jury drawing. So the evidence doesn’t come in.
It leads me to another question; so if the defendant stated that he saw the blood on her (from the wreck), coupled with the banging and the time or otherwise implied he was scared of her appearance and these variables, then the selfies “might” be allowed?
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the defendant had claimed to be frightened or felt threatened by the victim, then it would behoove the defense to show that the victim had been known to present herself in a frightening or threatening manner.
Sure. If her appearance was a factor that the Defendant claimed make him reasonably fear for his life, then examples of how she dressed would likely be relevant. Holding bricks of weed? Probably not.
It’s a very fact specific inquiry and the outcome will change from judge to judge. In this case it is pretty clear that since the Defendant admits that he did not see details of what she was wearing, then her dress cannot possibly be relevant to the ultimate question of his state of mind.
My sister was recently on jury duty and was put on a case that relates to this issue. As a bit of background, we live in San Diego and people working in the city, but living across the border in Mexico, is not uncommon given the huge cost savings in doing so.
In the case, a Hispanic woman and her young daughter were driving across the border from Mexico to the U.S. where the daughter was to be dropped off at school and the woman was going to work at a used car lot. The car in question was from the lot’s inventory if that matters. She gets pulled over for secondary inspection at the border and they find a large quantity of meth in a hidden compartment in the car and she is arrested. She claims she drives numerous cars from the lot, and that her boyfriend had taken the car for several hours the night before in Mexico, so he or one or his friends may have put the meth in the hidden compartment with the expectation of getting it out on the U.S. side and using her as a “drug mule” without her knowledge.
All kinds of information is suppressed about the woman and given the uncertainty of the situation and the possibility she was innocent, they had a hung jury, which included my sister finding her potentially innocent. Afterwards, they spoke to the jury and the prosecutor mentioned evidence that was suppressed asking if it would have made a difference. This included the fact the boyfriend was in prison currently for drug smuggling and had a long history of doing it. The woman had been with the boyfriend for over a year and was very likely aware of his history, and she herself had previously been convicted of being a drug mule using similar methods.
This made my sister very mad because she completely fell for the ‘innocent mother and daughter screwed over by the boyfriend she didn’t know very well’ routine that played out in the courtroom, and this information would have changed her mind. Like anything else, it’s possible the woman’s drug muling was in her distant past, and that she only recently became aware of the boyfriend’s association with it because he kept it hidden from her up until he recently went to prison, so I’m sure that was the logic for why the information was suppressed. Still, I would want to know more. My sister also said there was no real information given as to her reaction when the meth was found. I would think a truly innocent person would flip out saying it wasn’t their drugs, they didn’t want their daughter taken away, etc., whereas a guilty person might play it cool and just calmly ask for an attorney.
This is a perfect - and much better - example of my initial question.
While I agree with the points made on my OP, the idea that the suppressed information regarding the woman in your example directly impacted the trial and was IMO VERY relevant, speaks volumes to my point that the prosecution is generally speaking more concerned with “winning” as opposed to finding the truth.
That is the - again IMO - one of the weakest parts of our legal system. A prosecutor gets promoted by putting people in jail and gets no credit for discovering the truth if it does not lead to a conviction.
So many examples of people in jail who were not guilty, but the prosecutor is almost ALWAYS the last to admit/see it even in light of overwhelming “reasonable doubt”.
The fact that your sister wanted to know about the drug mule conviction doesn’t mean it should have been allowed in. In fact, it’s a helpful indicator of why we don’t allow such things in (sometimes) - because it tends to short circuit the criminal judicial process.
Correct. Because this woman was once convicted of being a drug mule, if that was allowed in, she would be convicted every single subsequent time she was accused of it.
That’s just human nature. Rules of evidence are an attempt to eliminate the irrational prejudices we each may have.
Of course, in some cases it goes too far and in others not far enough, but it is far better than just allowing everything in under the sun.
I would suggest that the history should be allowed because it allows the jury to decide for themselves the believability of her “I didn’t know” defense. Strongly implicit in such a defense is the corollary of “…and I couldn’t have known and couldn’t be expected to think of such a thing.”
The point is correct- the fellow did not peruse the victim’s Facebook page before deciding to kill her, nor did he tweet her friends asking for some pithy sayings and poses she may have posted. Therefore, whether she at some times acted out as a gang member is irrelevant - the only relevant information is how she looked and acted when the defendant became aware of her.
As for the drug mule allegation - again, if the woman was in the habit of taking cars, if the boyfriend was in the habit of “borrowing” those cars - that might be relevant. What she did or did not do for previous convictions, or the fact the bf is in jail for something not related to her border trip, is irrelevant.
Note too you only get the Prosecutor’s side of the missing evidence. What specifically were these crimes - were they in any way relevant to the current dilemma? “been with him for a year”? I’d get that detail clarified, odds are it had been over a year between arrest and trial. “Been with” is such a polite term, it could mean co-habituating for that time or acquainted but only cohabitating for a short time.
Was she threatened to make her do it? Was her daughter threatened? Apparently threatening family seems to be a common behaviour in that area, particularly by those who can get their hands on meth by the kilo. The quickest way out of that dilemma was to be caught - conviction or not, she’s not leaving a border crossing in future with an intact car.
I’m astounded that vehicles are allowed to cross the border with dealer plates. Oh well, lesson learned.
I agree, it sounds like she’s guilty as heck, but there’s still that reasonable doubt.
The standard for a criminal trial is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “she did it in the past so I bet she did it again”. Each time you try to convict someone, you need to convict them for what they were accused of this time, not what they were accused (or convicted of) in the past.
However, information on prior convictions can be admitted in some cases.
I was on a jury trial for someone violating a social host ordinance, that is, hosting a party with alcohol where underage drinkers were present. Cops broke up the party, handed out a ticket for I think a couple hundred bucks. Most people would just pay the ticket, but this guy elected to have his jury trial (which he is legally entitled to).
We were told that he had a prior drug conviction, because it was relevant to the case: he was on probation at the time, and wasn’t supposed to drink any alcohol. The prosecutor did make a big point about how we shouldn’t believe his testimony, because if he was convicted of this it would be a worse punishment than normal (for violating probation). I thought that was a little odd, but the judge seemed OK with that line of argument.
We did let the guy off. He blamed his housemates for holding the party without his knowledge, prosecution didn’t really provide any evidence that it was this guy specifically who threw the party. I thought the defendant was a lying turd, but, well, what I “think” isn’t the standard needed to convict.
As a society, we have basically decided that such tactics weren’t cool (even though the defendants might legitimately have believed that skimpy clothing implied consent).
“Legitimately” believe that skimpy clothing implies consent? Oh geeze…
Well I sure hope - for the sake of the defendant - that I am never selected on a case like that. I personally believe that your past crimes and associations are very relevant in many/most instances, although I see that many on this board disagree with that.
One reason the court might have admitted the evidence is to negate a “mistake” defense (“I didn’t know there might be drugs in the car!”) It’s the prosecutor’s burden to show the the purpose of the evidence is appropriat though.
Legitimate in the sense that he actually believed it, not in the sense that the belief itself is legitimate.
Well, you know, you can disagree with the law if you want but in that case I too hope you are never on a jury in such a case. Maybe if you are, you should ask to be removed.
I gather it is something along the lines of “it would prejudice the jury” but isn’t the point of both the prosecution and defense to make a case?