One Aspect of Criminal Trials that puzzles me re: Character

Maybe for good reason, the Defense gets so many advantages when it comes to introducing character evidence.

A defendant in a criminal case can present a parade of character witnesses. I've seen this happen in some of the most horrific homicides you can imagine.

But sometimes I wonder, why can't the prosecution put on the stand witnesses to testify as to the pain the loss of the victim has caused the survivors?

Intellectually, I understand this is very prejudicial to the Defendant. But without that, it just seems too easy for the jurors to forget about the lives that have been lost or what they meant to the survivors.

On the upside, it is true that nowadays the family or loved ones of victims can testify at sentencing hearings.

Since I'm not an attorney, I don't feel qualified to opine on whether or not a prosecutor should be able to introduce evidence as to "what was lost" when a victim is killed in a heinous crime (or otherwise), but it is just a question that occurs to me from time to time.

As always, what others here at DU think about this matter is of great interest to me.

people are not allowed to give their opinions or second-hand observations when they testify.

It's in The Rules Of Evidence.

People can only testify to what they know, to facts in evidence. Not speculate as to what might have been, what was lost, etc.

The people have to work harder - it sometimes seems - than the defendant because they must overcome the presumption of innocence, but, character witnesses are used in sentencing hearings, not at trial...................

It is true the burden is on the State.

This question is just rhetorical, but what if the defendant is very charismatic?

it's not a good idea to put your client - the defendant - on the stand. And a "charismatic" one is the most dangerous of all, since juries don't like "slick."

It's just not gonna work.

And the post I gave you is the result of lots of hard work as a lawyer over three+ decades. It's always an uphill battle against the presumption of innocence, but the rules of evidence run the trial .......................

That fits in with that

But to have people testify to the character of a victim would be prejudicial since it implies that the defendant is guilty. Once found guilty however, people that know the victim can testify about the character of the victim during sentencing.

The trial is about what the defendant did, and the character of the victim would only be important if it has to do with some element of motive or some way making the case of the guilt or innocent of the defendant. But the character of the defendant, both good and bad, can show patterns of behavior that are relevant.

I'm not sure that the amount of pain has any bearing on the question of guilty or not guilty. The actual sentencing is another matter.

the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense can try to destroy the evidence, and they can present witnesses as to the defendant's character and such. If the jury finds the defendant guilty, then during the sentencing phase after a guilty verdict the victims of the crime can usually speak. They can talk about what the crime has done to them and the judge can then decide the sentence.

you. NT

at sentencing hearings. Loss is loss.
I have always thought that is dangerously close to tribalism. And renders some members of the tribe more valuable than others.

I've railed against that from the beginning. So have a lot of other attorneys.

It's a joke, you know, when you consider, in a murder trial, the "victim" of the crime is dead.

Bringing in families at sentencing hearing is nothing but cheap theatrics and, in my opinion, inordinately prejudicial.

It's the "Oprah Effect," we call it. Everyone wants their time at the microphone, the center stage, if only for a few moments......................

Evidence and character about the defendant is all relevant to whether he committed the crime.

How is how sorely missed the victim will be relevant to whether he committed the crime?

At sentencing, however, this victim information is sometimes allowed.

Let's go out and kill people who're friendless, huh?

Dumb. :eyes:

I'll be your friend...........

:hug:

:evilgrin:

Somehow, the notion that "the defendant has so many advantages" just short-circuited my brain pan.

:crazy:

did you know that almost all of them get FREE ROOM AND BOARD before their trials?

AND DURING THE TRIALS, TOO!!!

Yeah. They do.

It's true.

I've seen it with my own eye...............

At sentencing, though, it is appropriate to introduce such opinions?

jury.

Besides, a lot of times it gets in by virtue of the fact that the prosecution will call "loved ones" (parents) to the stand and they will express their emotions for the loss.

It's like a defendant's right to a speedy trial. The State must prove the crime, not the defendant so the defendant can bring whatever he/she needs to make him/her look innocent. In other words the defendant is innocent so the families only get to come forth after he/she is convicted and proved to be guilty.

It just took me some time to think about it to understand why it does.

You are right, as are the other posters here.

Thanks.

I was just asking.