InStephens, a key point of dispute between the majority and the dissent was how they characterized the evidence the defendant wanted to present. The majority saw no constitutional problem in not allowing the defendant to offer this evidence. In fact, they termed it a "very minor imposition" on his defense and found that the comment he wanted to offer into evidence had "no other purpose" than to degrade her. The dissent, however, found his testimony to be the very cornerstone of his case, as this is a case where the defendant's testimony was critical. The dissent found it hard to imagine a jury believing his version without the evidence he wanted to offer. Which opinion do you agree with and why? Do you think a judge's life experience influences how he or she views that evidence?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In the case of Stephens the key point of dispute between the majority and the dissenting opinions was how they characterized the evidence the defendan... View the full answer