True. If his criminal past was allowed in court, yes. Is Tammi's own criminal past admissible?
If been in meetings all morning and could not watch or post.
I think the defense opened the door yesterday to ALL of Tammi's past- criminal, abandoning her kids, etc. - to come in because, while past bad acts don't come unless related to an MO, in general, they can come in when the defendant herself testifies as to her good character, which she did yesterday, with all that stuff about preaching to "heathens" in Africa.
Like I said yesterday (and haven't watched yet today), if the state fails to bring this character evidence up today, I will lose all faith in them.
And as to Logan's criminal past vs. Tammi's, this trial is not to decide whether or not Logan is a good person and should have custody. He is not on trial. So, his criminal record is not as relevant as hers is.
Nevertheless, didn't he already testify as to his criminal record?
Bottom line is that Tammi acted criminally, which is why she on trial, so when she tries to claim she is peaches and cream and an upstanding citizen with pure motives, her past becomes important. Logan has a bad past as well, but HE didn't aid and abet the kidnapping of his son or the denial of custody of a child to a lawful parent. So, his past is irrelevant here.