They have to. I mean legally they cannot consider that evidence. If they keep bringing it up in jury deliberations, and that gets reported, it would be a mistrial.
However, you’re right in that it cannot be erased from a person’s mind… the phrase I’ve heard used is “ringing the bell” which is when a lawyer might mention a persons prior convictions, but that gets objected to and stricken. But the bell rung and the jury knows.
I read that title but I didn’t see the “to” and I started laughing.
They should have to prove their credentials. ;)
User tags?
Clients offer them.
They don’t. But later in deliberations they cannot see it in a transcript. They are supposed to base everything on the evidence they have.
So, if something is said that absolutely incriminates a person, but it’s thrown out on a technicality and little evidence remains… technically they should be not guilty.
Conversely, if someone is being railroaded for a crime and the only evidence placing them half way across the world at the time is somehow thrown out…. They’d have to find them guilty.
Could you? I could not.
If they don’t, and they say they aren’t, it is a mistrial.
If they don’t, and they keep their mouth shut, then no one knows.
Connected.