oldman45:
CAJ can give you specifics on LA law, but, generally, testimony must be relevant to the case. Relevance is a big deal in criminal cases and many are reversed by an appellate court when testimony about some incident not relevant is admitted.
For example, the fact that the defendant's family might suffer has nothing to do with whether the defendant did or didn't do the crime. Testimony about that might cause a jury to feel sorry for a defendant and acquit him, though they believed, beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.
So, too, might testimony that a defendant was generous and even generous towards the victim and his family. Again, nothing to do with whether he did or didn't commit the crime.
That the victim may have been reckless or careless in the past may be relevant if his conduct during the incident was similar. It depends on the facts alleged in the case.
As to the receipt of money from the insurance company, that, again, has nothing to do with whether the defendant did or didn't do the crime.
I am assuming from the facts you gave and the potential punishment that the defendant was charged with some sort of DUI Manslaughter charge. In my state, there must be causation to convict.
In the "old days" if a drunk was driving and was sitting at a red light and someone ran into the rear of his car and died-DUI Manslaughter!
About 20 years ago, our Supreme Court said that this was not acceptable. That there must be some causation-some improper driving-on the part of the defendant to convict him of DUI Manslaughter.
Don't know about LA's laws.
The issues you mention usually come up when the defendant has a bad record. Most folks think that, if he did other crimes, he probably did the one he is charged with. (Ya think?).
But, unless the crimes are what's called "Similar Fact Evidence," (in the Federal Rules and the Rules in my state) they generally are not introduced into evidence in front of the jury.
That, to me as a LEO and then a career prosecutor, was the hardest thing to understand and to deal with especially when a defendant with a horrible record sat at the table dressed in a nice suit, nice haircut, etc.
I had one case, on a Governor's Appointment over in Palm Beach County, where the defendant's wife, who claimed to have just learned she was pregnant, sat just behind the defendant and all her friends had a little "Baby Shower" for her while the trial was proceeding. They gave her diapers, little baby clothes, etc. When the Judge saw it, I thought he was gonna croak on the spot. Fortunately, the jury saw this for what it was-an attempt to garner sympathy for the defendant which had nothing to do with whether he was guilty of the crime or not.
Of course, if the defendant chooses to testify, then his prior felonies, at least the number of convictions and convictions for certain misdemeanors is fair game for me on cross examining him.
And, if the crimes he committed in the past are similar (for example, he always wore a red bandana when he committed robberies of banks) then that is the type of Similar Fact Evidence that is relevant and admissible whether he testifies or not.
Not saying the system is perfect or that it always works, but that it is simply the way the system's rules work.
Bob
.
Then they herded us out to a single wide trailer that held about 20 with a feeble AC unit. We let the older folks sit in the trailer and about 80 of us stood, or sat on steps, outside in the FL summer sun. 12 were called(at least they got to go in where it was ACed) and the rest of us got to go home around 2P. No lunch either BTW.
Guy was a sleezebag and eventually got disbarred cause he was caught running coke-scumbags like that are to us lawyers what the occasional scumbag (Len Davis is a good example)is to the LEO's. Gives us all a bad name-you just want them to go out to the 50 yard line and hold the targets.
