TN - Bill Passes That Allows Jurors To See In-Life Photographs

~Lyric~

Where is the Justice for Holly Bobo?
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
1,595
Reaction score
62
There has been a bit of debating on the issue of allowing Victims in life, before they were killed, photo's to juries.

In Tennessee the bill just passed:

Prosecutors and victims' rights advocates hailed the passage of the legislation as a return to portraying the dead as more than just a corpse. It comes during National Crimes Victims' Rights Week.

Weirich said the in-life photographs allow the victims to be seen as more than a piece of evidence.



http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...ors-To-See-In-Life-Photographs-300931281.html


The bill passed 86-1 in the Tennessee House of Representatives and 28-1 in the Tennessee State Senate.

Read more: Bill allows pictures of murder victims to be shown at trials | Kingsport Times-News http://www.timesnews.net/article/90...r-victims-to-be-shown-at-trials#ixzz3Y9illvsc
Follow us: @timesnewsonline on Twitter | timesnews on Facebook


“The process of ensuring victim rights will continue,” said Guy Jones, deputy director of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, which coordinated a two-year effort to get the legislature to set the newly passed policy. “The statute that was passed today is based on a statute in Oklahoma that has been reviewed and upheld in the courts. We look forward to the good it will do here in Tennessee.”

http://wreg.com/2015/04/21/victim-life-photo-bill-passed-by-tennessee-general-assembly/
 
I don't see a problem with it. Perhaps one of our lawyers will explain otherwise.
 
I can see defense using this to their advantage, portraying the victim in less-than-stellar situations. Hm, I'm torn on this.
 
I can see defense using this to their advantage, portraying the victim in less-than-stellar situations. Hm, I'm torn on this.

Seems like it would humanize the victim to the jury, unless you think the victim has a shady past...
 
Seems like it would humanize the victim to the jury, unless you think the victim has a shady past...

That's what I mean. If the, say, abuse/murder victim was a partier or a brawler who got in fights or something, and the defense tries to use that past to say "See, this person was no saint" or "This person was always getting themselves in trouble", that could be bad. To me, a victim's past doesn't matter, no matter how troubled, especially if the victim is murdered or abused. JMO! :)
 
I can see defense using this to their advantage, portraying the victim in less-than-stellar situations. Hm, I'm torn on this.

I haven't see the language of the bill, but surely judges still have the right to refuse to admit evidence that is more prejudicial than probative. A nude shot of the victim, for example, would still be inadmissable, in most cases, because of the prejudicial nature of the photo.
 
I haven't see the language of the bill, but surely judges still have the right to refuse to admit evidence that is more prejudicial than probative. A nude shot of the victim, for example, would still be inadmissable, in most cases, because of the prejudicial nature of the photo.

I would hope so! I definitely support it if that's the case :)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
3,856
Total visitors
4,001

Forum statistics

Threads
592,103
Messages
17,963,279
Members
228,685
Latest member
SandraGanis
Back
Top