- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
And assuming the prosecution wanted that in, the issue would then be that this stuff is probably admissible, and definitely relevant to the state of mind of the defendant, but assuming it falls under one of the many hearsay exceptions, the issue then becomes whether it's more prejudicial than probative, i.e. does it prove facts more than just making the fact-finder hate the defendant a lot.@AnOminous We were talking about the prosecution using them. Even if they don't add evidence, I think it matters that Chris says Barb was "Zombielike, deer in the headlights most of the time" when the incest happened, and that she needs to die pronto so he can have her house.
As a prosecutor, you really do want the jury to hate the defendant, but as a legal matter, you can't just introduce stuff because it shows the defendant is just in general a complete bastard.
I could see it going either way.
And in these Internet cases, we've seen stuff like this that the jury didn't see and the prosecution didn't introduce, and it ended up as badly for the defendant as it could without going off on wild goose chases and Internet crap. I specifically name Nick Bate. There was plenty of Internet stuff that made him look completely disgusting that the prosecution didn't even touch, like the fact he had literally sung a song called "Anally Raping Children" about anally raping children, while he was on trial for anally raping children.
He got the max sentence even without that showing up in court.