Changes

An example of evidence that is potentially relevant but excluded for its prejudicial effect is evidence of past convictions.  A court's role is to determine what happened, and who was responsible, evidence of previous convictions could suggest that the defendant is capable of committing a crime, but the effect of the evidence would too often make the judge or jury (jury in particular) ''assume'' that the defendant was guilty, irrespective of the facts of the case.  There are some limited exceptions to when a defendant can be cross-examined on their past convictions, generally surrounding where the defendant has made an issue of their good character.

An example of evidence that is potentially relevant but excluded for its prejudicial effect is evidence of past convictions.  A court's role is to determine what happened, and who was responsible, evidence of previous convictions could suggest that the defendant is capable of committing a crime, but the effect of the evidence would too often make the judge or jury (jury in particular) ''assume'' that the defendant was guilty, irrespective of the facts of the case.  There are some limited exceptions to when a defendant can be cross-examined on their past convictions, generally surrounding where the defendant has made an issue of their good character.

Another evidence that is excluded for lack of relevance is the opinions of people who are not qualified to give expert opinion.  The evidence is not relevant because it does not really matter what someone who is not an expert to give his opinion.  Only people whom the court deems knowledgeable can make conclusions about the evidence tendered For example, a prosecutor would not be allowed to ask a lay witness how long they thought a body had been dead for.  The witness may be asked about the condition of that body when they found it.  Then they may ask an expert in medical forensics to give evidence interpreting what the described condition would mean for the time of death.

Another evidence that is excluded for lack of relevance is the opinions of people who are not qualified to give expert opinion.  The evidence is not relevant because it does not really matter what someone who is not an expert to give his opinion.  Only people whom the court deems knowledgeable can make conclusions about the evidence tendered. For example, a prosecutor would not be allowed to ask a lay witness how long they thought a body had been dead for.  The witness may be asked about the condition of that body when they found it.  Then they may ask an expert in medical forensics to give evidence interpreting what the described condition would mean for the time of death.

==Reliability==

==Reliability==