SweetT
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2012
- Messages
- 2,939
- Reaction score
- 114
Relevant things are allowed in even if they are harmful to the defendant. The "prejudice" rule does not exclude relevant evidence. IMO if JM had wanted to argue that the weapons in the car showed a lack of PTSD and if Dr. DeMarte had agreed that this was true, he could have used that information. We don't know if he just didn't think of it (I know I have never thought this information was important--maybe JM didn't either), or DeMarte said, hmmm, IDK, if they are just kitchen knives in a box I don't think that's a big deal, or what. It's possible that he tried to use the information and it was excluded because the relevance ("probative value" in lawyer-speak) was pretty low compared to the potential prejudice, but if so, the prejudice would have been the risk that the jury would assume she was off to kill victim #2, not the risk that the jury would think she didn't have PTSD!
I guess my mind thinks differently cause I feel like someone who just murdered a man with a gun and a knife...now having another gun (not registered to her legally, which doesnt matter to me) and more knives in her care at the time she was arrested sure tells me that she was up to something AGAIN. JMO