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.

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.

Other evidence that may be relevant might be excluded for its unreliability.  The classic case of this is [[hearsay evidence]].  What someone said to another about what happened is generally excluded because there is no way of cross-examining the person making the comment.   

Other evidence that may be relevant might be excluded for its unreliability.  The classic case of this is [[Hearsay|hearsay evidence]].  What someone said to another about what happened is generally excluded because there is no way of cross-examining the person making the comment, and also the statement made may not reflect the reality of what happened.  Although the hearsay evidence is often extremely relevant, it is excluded because it cannot be verified as being true.   

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

[[category:Evidence]]

[[category:Evidence]]