Frank Ettin
Administrator
I don't want to get into a debate about whether the CoP or the father or anyone else may have criminal culpability, but I do see a real issue with allowing the video to be seen.
It's well established that relevant evidence may nonetheless be excluded if the potential of prejudice is greater than the probative value of the proposed evidence. For example, Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
Allowing the video is the sort of trial court evidentiary ruling that is likely to become one of the issues for the court of appeal if there's a conviction.
It's well established that relevant evidence may nonetheless be excluded if the potential of prejudice is greater than the probative value of the proposed evidence. For example, Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides:
"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
Allowing the video is the sort of trial court evidentiary ruling that is likely to become one of the issues for the court of appeal if there's a conviction.