Taylor & Courts

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by Carnage

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

I was actually thinking the same thing at first, but here is the problem. He is not claiming self-defense or any other affirmative defense; he is simply saying there was no gun involved and he never pointed a gun at anyone. Therefore, what he reasonably believed about these people is irrelevant because it's not an element of his defense.