Sentences with phrase «prejudicial evidence»

So you lose an evidentiary argument and the court allows some potentially prejudicial evidence to be presented for some narrow purpose such as bias, impeachment or to show intent, similar plan, motive or scheme.

[168] It was during the oral hearing itself that the Complainants learned of some prejudicial evidence the IAMAW had about them.

Judges I've spoken to expressed no concern about such motions, but it's reasonable to suggest that the more potentially inflammatory and therefore prejudicial the evidence, the more difficult it might be for a judge to not be influenced or affected by it.

A policy with a short retention period might offer some justification to dispose of «smoking guns» and other prejudicial evidence.

They want permission to seek a new trial on grounds that jurors should never have heard the prejudicial evidence, and they want to use McDonnell to respond to the government's sentencing arguments.

Not exact matches

When prosecutors said in court that they wanted to introduce evidence of the convictions of other New York politicians, one of Mr. Silver's lawyers, Steven F. Molo, objected, arguing that doing so would be «highly prejudicial.»

Another judge rejected a request by lawyers for former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to exclude evidence from his federal corruption trial that he argued was irrelevant and prejudicial.

Besides exposing the pros and cons of jury - based trials, «Runaway Jury» sets its sights on the relationship between firearms manufacturers and gun crime — but instead of setting forth the evidence from either side and allowing viewers to reach their own verdict on such complex issues, the film presents a highly prejudicial case, leading its audience to a conclusion that is disappointingly righteous.

After the company called federal prosecutors» contention that a hacker actually was responsible for the judge's tweet «highly inaccurate and prejudicial,» the company remained adamant that additional evidence should be allowed to rebut this «unsupported hypothesis.»

He frequently brought up matters that the trial judge warned him were prejudicial to his case, he declined to cross-examine the complainants, and he eventually abandoned his closing address after objections that he was trying to adduce new evidence.

As to the assessment of the second condition, the Court insisted that for prejudicial effects to be found, there had to be a concrete evidence of a risk to the privacy and integrity of data subjects.

Via Siouxsie Law I came across an interesting recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Georgia that reversed a murder conviction because the trial court allowed the prosecution to introduce «irrelevant and highly prejudicial character evidence» about a teenage defendant's «goth» lifestyle.

In addition, Huard's evidence was prejudicial and distorted the trial process.

In this case, presiding Judge Sir Henry Globe QC felt compelled to abandon the trial after evidence of «an avalanche of prejudicial comment» was presented to him by the police.

There is no support for the conclusion that the state court failed to take into account the totality of the available mitigating evidence and to consider the prejudicial impact of counsel's actions.

The court now acts as a «gatekeeper» for otherwise inadmissible evidence, weighing the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence.

What Alexander teaches about keeping from evidence this prejudicial effect of their undocumented status applies equally to Cincinnati, Ohio and other jurisdictions as it does in Alexander's home in Indianapolis.

The test has three prongs and is follows: the evidence must be of a specific instance of sexual activity, the evidence must be relevant to an issue at trial and finally the evidence's probative value must significantly outweigh its prejudicial effect on the case.

Further, the fact that an appellant may have consented to the admission of the records is not always the determinative factor in deciding whether documents should have been entered into evidence, and will not preclude the ordering of a new trial with costs to the appellant after prejudicial clinical records were entered into evidence: Owimar v. Greater Vancouver Transit Authority, 2007 BCCA 630, citing Samuel.

There are specific exceptions that disallow the introduction of relevant evidence, the most general of which is that it would be unduly prejudicial to admit the evidence which is otherwise of only marginal relevance, but in practice, I think that the DNA evidence would pass this test.

The confession obtained during a Mr. Big operation can be highly probative when there is confirmatory evidence and that the prejudicial effects to the accused is low.

There are extensive rules developed around ensuring a jury hear relevant and probative evidence as opposed to information that would be merely prejudicial and may affect the fairness of the proceedings.

Further assurance of a flexible analysis of evidence issues flows from the trial judge's general discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence when its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

«Any prejudicial effect this evidence might have had on the minds of the jurors was far outweighed by its probative value on the issue to be determined by the jury.»

· The correct judicial response to the question of the admissibility of hearsay evidence in an expert opinion is not to withdraw the evidence from the trier of fact unless, of course, there are some other factors at play such that it will be prejudicial to one party, but rather to address the weight of the opinion and the reliability of the hearsay in an appropriate self - instruction or instruction to a jury.

Despite this finding by the Court of Appeal, only Justice Green found that the evidence admitted — of prior sexual history — was so prejudicial that it warranted a new trial on the charges.

As a general rule of thumb, these biases must have existed from sources not related to the court room (i.e. the Judge says something prejudicial to the press or in passing and evidence to that prejudice can be shown).

However, the prejudicial nature of such evidence must be carefully considered against its probative value.

The procedure is that the member files a petition to the court under section 996 of the Companies Act 2006 and a detailed witness statement which includes all the necessary formal information about the company as well as full evidence about the unfairly prejudicial acts.

of the atrocities, and that this, of itself, establishes the prejudicial effect of the affidavits, etc., and of the denial resulting from their reception of any means of probing the evidence they contained, including all opportunity for cross-examination.

In Landolfi, the test for admissibility of surveillance as impeachment evidence was found to be one of «relevance to the credibility of a witness on a material matter and a further demonstration that the potential value of the proffered evidence to assist in assessing credibility outweighs prejudicial effect of the evidence.

Evidence that has little probative value to the issues at trial, while being also highly prejudicial to the accused, is often not admissible at the trial.

The court also held that, although the convictions were quite old, they still provided some value to the jury, and while the evidence was prejudicial, it was not unfairly so.

The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence, claiming that it was «more prejudicial than probative» and violated the rules of evidence.

The Court also took Rule 403 into consideration and concluded that the prejudicial effect of such evidence outweighed its probative value.

However, I also find that the value of the new family home has such little probative value in relation to the propensity of the plaintiff to be working full - time or part - time that it is outweighed by the prejudicial effect of such evidence.

By prejudicial effect, I mean the danger that the evidence will be misused.

The identity of the payor of a single medical bill in a subsequent and unrelated collision is wholly immaterial to this case and is therefore not proper impeachment evidence, especially under the probative versus prejudicial balancing test in that the jury may then infer that there is medical payments insurance available to pay bills for the underlying collision case.

Prima facie relevant evidence is admissible, subject to a discretion to exclude where the probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

The evidence at issue here is relevant, in my view, and the probative value of the evidence exceeds its prejudicial effect.

[36] In the circumstances of this case, I find that the probative value relating to the life insurance proceeds and the absence or existence of a mortgage outweighs the prejudicial effect of such evidence.

Remember that your client is not well - equipped to judge the relevance, materiality, and prejudicial potential of evidence.

The trial judge still must consider whether the expert's evidence would be prejudicial.

R. v. Jackson, 2014 SCC 30 (35622) Abella J.: «The trial judge made no error in determining... the minimal probative value of the proposed evidence... substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect».

With regard to the Cawthorne matter, the decision not to grant a mistrial was within the military judge's discretion: he made a reasonable attempt to remedy the error through two instructions, one immediate and another mid-trial; in his mid-trial instruction, he instructed the panel to disregard the evidence because it was both «unreliable and prejudicial»; nothing suggested to the judge that the panel was unwilling or unlikely to follow his instruction.

C.A., Oct. 17, 2013)(35622) Judgment rendered Apr. 23, 2014 Abella J.: — ``... [no] basis for interfering with the reasons of Gillese J.A. and, in particular, with her conclusion that the trial judge made no error in determining that the minimal probative value of the proposed evidence was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect».

The question Judge Koh will ask herself is whether or not the probative value of any evidence is outweighed by prejudicial jury confusion.

There is a further reasoned order in the same case made on the 5th October 2016 (i.e. without the expense of a hearing) in which Roth J. dismissed the Defendant's application to adduce late expert evidence, since this would be prejudicial to the Claimant.

When balanced against the prejudicial effect of allowing evidence of professional liability insurance, the potential for bias in this case is so remote as to warrant exclusion.

Furthermore, evidence, which has no probative value but is highly prejudicial to the accused, as this evidence may be, should be deemed inadmissible at trial.