credibility based on certain things have happened in some other cases so if you think about it, a lot of times in a civil case you bring any information from a criminal conviction. it's a little different when you have a criminal case, bringing information from a civil case because it's a different burden, different standard of proof that's required but i expect they're going to want to if he takes the stand, they're going to say, wait a minute, but you've already had been it's been determined that you're not credible. the court has found certain things and the judges having to weigh that to decide whether or not the prejudicial effect of that is outweighed by the substance two value of that that information that they seek to bring in. and so the judge is going to have to go through that balancing tests for each of these things. so each the e jean carroll case the allegations other ladies that he's been involved, all of that information the judge is going to have to weigh in the side. is that too prejudicial to get in this case as it does it create a risk of an appeal. does it give the defendants if there's a conviction? does it give trump a chance to argue something on appeal? in other words, the jury was presented with evidence. it was improper, and
Related Keywords
It , Case , Lot , Things , Cases , Conviction , Information , Times , Credibility , Standard , Stand , Court , Judges , Burden , Proof , Judge , Jean Carroll , Peach , Effect , Value , Tests , Ladies , Allegations , Two , Something , Wall , Side , Risk , Jury , Chance , Evidence , Appeal , Words , Defendants ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.