Discussion on Civil Litigation (Essay Sample)

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Civil Litigation
The majority of jurisdictions allow evidence of prior felony convictions to be used against the credibility of a witness who is testifying. In order to demonstrate that the accused may be untrustworthy, this evidence is acceptable. Evidence showing the defendant is a bad and dangerous person or has a history of committing crimes is not admissible evidence. The courts and legislatures recognize that, despite the limitations placed on juries, past criminal evidence can nevertheless unfairly bias a jury against a defendant, even though juries are required to follow these instructions (Altantulkhuur, pg 5).
Because of this, judges are compelled to weigh the adverse impact of evidence from the past against its usefulness in the investigation. To be eliminated, the evidence must be even slightly more adverse than probative. In the United States, sex offenders are by far the most feared and loathed group, and sex offenders' convictions are not especially useful in determining the credibility of the accused (Altantulkhuur, pg 8). However, when weighing the probative value of prior convictions for sex crimes against the prejudice they may have on jurors, judges rarely take this into account. In doing so, this failure calls into question foundational tenets of our criminal justice system's evidence-based approach.
It's difficult for an accused person who has already been found guilty of a sexual offense to decide between taking a plea bargain, going to trial without testifying, or testifying but risking the jury's goodwill because of their prior sex crime conviction (Altantulkhuur, pg 13). Valid reasonable doubt is far less likely to result in an acquittal. A jury's obligation to decide whether a defendant is guilty of the accident, thus must not be distracted by animosity toward a defendant who has previously been charged with a sex crime, according to the law. Prior convictio