Re: Victim impact statements -- should they be allowed?
Joeblow wrote:Could you provide me with an example of what "unfairly prejudicial" might mean in real terms, in relation to a victim impact statement?
I actually hesitated when I wrote "unfairly prejudicial" in my previous post, because I thought that the phrase could be confusing to most people. But I was in a hurry and so I let it go.
"Unfairly prejudicial" is a common legal term. Typically, it is applied to evidence, where it means that the prejudice to a party outweighs the probative value of the evidence. In short, it is evidence that inflames the jury's prejudices more than it illuminates the case. A good example of that would be evidence that the defendant in a murder trial was also a drug user. As long as the defendant's drug use was unconnected with the crime, there is no reason to introduce that evidence except to make the jury mad at the defendant.
It is easy to see, I think, how this term applies in the context of victim impact statements. Let's say that, in a murder case, the victim's mother says that the victim was a wonderful person, supplying all sorts of touching anecdotes and reminiscences to establish that fact. Now, what is the purpose of that except to make the jury mad at the defendant? Mad enough, in fact, to order the defendant's execution. And if that's the purpose, isn't that unfairly prejudicial?
Joeblow wrote:Isn't it the job of the judge and/or jury to determine what weight, if any, should be given to these statements?
Indeed it is. But the judge is supposed to prevent the introduction of unfairly prejudicial evidence, since the jury cannot be counted upon to "tune out" that kind of irrelevant-but-inflammatory evidence. We want the jury to give such evidence no weight whatsoever, but we are familiar enough with human nature to know that many jurors will not.
