KMouse
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,755
- Reaction score
- 3,892
I am thinking that this was probably part of the legal arguments that went on prior to the trial starting ... the defence would say that her character forms part of their defence, and the judge likely agreed that her priors could be revealled to the jury. I dont think that any of MR's priors would be admitted though - if he has any - I think that Canadian law doesn't allow the jurors to know about prior bad acts since it would taint them and the case is to be judged on a "stand alone" basis.
We shall see!
ITA. It's like when they have a jail house rat testify. The defence usually tries to attack the rat's credibility by going over his/her criminal record.