Respond to the two posts. Response should be a minimum of 200 words.

Post 1:

When we talk about evidence in a courtroom, it might seem obvious that anything relevant should be presented to the jury. However, in examining the rules of evidence, particularly Florida Statutes 90.401-90.403 and Federal Rules of Evidence 401-403, it is clear that relevance is the primary filter for admissibility in criminal trials. However, courts often exclude evidence that, while relevant, poses a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. I found three real criminal cases illustrating this principle.

One Florida case that highlights this is Chavez v. State (2009). In this case, the court ruled that hearsay evidence about the defendant threatening his wife, though seemingly relevant, was inadmissible. The court emphasized that under Florida Statute 90.802, hearsay cannot be admitted unless it falls under a recognized exception. Since there was no proof that Chavez intentionally made the witness unavailable, the hearsay did not qualify, and admitting it would have caused unfair prejudice (FLORIDA & DISTRICT, 2009).

In the federal case United States v. Crawford, 198 F.2d 976 (1952), the court acknowledged that relevant evidence might still be excluded if it risks unfairly prejudicing the jury. The court used a "curative admission" of additional evidence only to correct the damage done by earlier, irrelevant material. This shows how Rule 403 allows judges to balance probative value against prejudice (Legal Information Institute, 2016).

Another example involves the frequent exclusion of propensity evidence, which attempts to show a defendant's bad character or likelihood of committing a crime. Even when this kind of evidence is relevant, courts often bar it because it encourages jurors to judge the person's character rather than the facts of the case. According to Weinberg (1975), this exclusion upholds the principle that justice should be based on acts, not assumptions.

In my opinion, I agree with the necessity of the Rule 403 relevancy test that allows judges to exclude relevant evidence due to the danger of unfair prejudice. While it may seem that excluding relevant evidence restricts the jury's access to facts, the rule protects the fairness and integrity of the trial. Evidence that provokes emotional bias or confuses the issues can mislead jurors and result in unjust verdicts. The judge's role is to ensure that the jury's decision is based on reliable and fair evidence, not on prejudice or confusion. Thus, the discretion to exclude such evidence is not a miscarriage of justice but a safeguard against it (Federal Rules of Evidence, 2023).

In conclusion, the courts' careful balancing of probative value against prejudicial impact reflects a mature understanding that relevance alone does not guarantee fairness (Albano, 2021; Imwinkelried, 2020). Protecting defendants' rights and the integrity of the judicial process justifies excluding some relevant evidence to prevent unfair prejudice and maintain a just trial.

Post 2:

Case 1: Bruton v. United States (1968)

A joint trial was held for Evans and petitioner for the conviction of an armed postal robbery. Evans did not take the stand, however postal inspector testified that Evans confided in him and verbally told him that he and petitioner had committed the robbery together. This evidence, while a competent confession for Evans, was hearsay for the petitioner and was ruled as inadmissible for the petitioner. This ruling was held because it violated the petitioner's right to cross-examine, as Evans did not take the stand (Justia 1968).

Case 2: United States v. Myers (1994)

Myers was convicted of bank robbery and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Myers filed an appeal for the conviction, claiming the lower courts were in violation of Myers' rights by refusing to strike an alibi witness's testimony where they stated that Myers had prior robbery convictions. This evidence was ruled as inadmissible by the appellate court because Myers should have been told about the witness testimony so that he would have the chance to cross-examine them and should have been excluded in the first place (CaseBriefs 1994).

Case 3: Robertson v. State (2002)

Robertson was charged with second degree murder after his girlfriend was shot. He claimed it was an accident that happened where his gun went off accidentally and shot her. His ex-wife testified that he had violently threatened her with a gun before. The testimony from his ex-wife was ruled as inadmissible because it involved a different witness, a different gun type, and was a threat of violence and not actual violence, so it was too dissimilar to the current case to be an admissible testimony (FindLaw 2002).

Agree or Disagree: A judge deciding to rule relevant evidence as inadmissible because of the danger of unfair prejudice is a miscarriage of justice and does not adequately allow a jury to have all the facts.

I disagree with the above statement, as I believe that if it poses a danger of unfair prejudice, then it would become a violation of the Sixth Amendment and the trial would become unfair. If the jury were swayed by evidence that was included in the trial that evoked a heavy emotional response, confused the jury members, or took their attention away from the main case, it would be extremely unfair to the defendant and would then be a miscarriage of justice.