But that’s the way it goes at trials. Prosecutors want to convict the defendant of murder, so they try to “dirty them up” with other stuff. Like video of them using stolen checks.
It’s the quintessential irrelevant and prejudice-outweighs-probative-value type of “evidence”, but the Casey Anthony judge allows it.
Some juries see through this kind of thing, but it’s rare.
On the other hand, the Defense isn’t even allowed to ask questions unless they get prior approval from the prosecutor and the judge:
Before the jury arrived for the fourth day of testimony at Casey Anthony’s murder trial Friday, defense attorney Jose Baez moved to have Judge Belvin Perry declare a mistrial.
Baez’s request came after Perry granted a prosecution motion that will require him to proffer testimony from witnesses about things the defendant said to them before the jury is allowed to hear it. Baez had argued that would give the prosecutors an unfair advantage after they have had so many witnesses testify about Casey’s behavior and sexual partners and it prevent him from countering those questions.
Arguing for a mistrial, Baez said that such testimony should be inadmissible because it deals with remorse and bad character, calling the prosecution’s case so far “an attempted character assassination” that had nothing to do with the alleged crime. Perry denied the motion, stating that there is a certain line of questioning about character evidence that is admissible and the testimony so far has fallen within that.
Get the picture? This is your “right” to a “fair trial” in action.
Baez is 100% correct. Not that it matters to Judge Perry who, like just about every other judge, is merely an uber-prosecutor.
This trial is even worse than I expected, and I don’t expect much. Baez might consider openly defying the judge and just doing what he wants. The only thing the judge can do is hold him in contempt and there would have to be a mistrial then.