Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown
Are you arguing my point for me?
No, I'm arguing that you're coming across as very arrogant. If you were on a jury where a confession was admitted as evidence, you would keep an open mind to the possibility that it was a false confession, right? So what makes you think you're so much more fair-minded than the rest of us?
Also, it's very common, even inevitable for prejudicial evidence to be admitted. All evidence is prejudicial to some extent - just being accused will cause people to form judgments about you. Not just dumb people, everyone, me and you included. In instructing a jury, the judge will tell them to put aside their prejudices and consider only the evidence presented. It's common for a judge to instruct a jury to disregard certain aspects of evidence (for example, not to draw inferences from an acccused's lifestyle or background that he is more or less likely to be guilty).
The whole reason we have the jury system is that we trust that juries are capable of doing this. It's the exact opposite of what you are talking about.