Jamie just finished working out at the gym and was on his way to court one morning. Jamie was about to start an eight-day trial at nine thirty that morning, when he got a phone call on his cell phone from the opposing attorney. Jamie and the attorney argued about the admissibility of some of the evidence Jamie wanted to have submitted to the jury. The attorney was a politician’s son and a second-generation attorney. In the state where Jamie practiced law, it is the politicians who appoint judges and not elected by the people. Hence, a politician can have a judge removed for no reason at all on the state level in this state.
The attorney brought a motion to suppress evidence. The judge entertained the motion despite Jamie not being given any notice. The judge ruled against Jamie. This made Jamie furious.
Judge: “Mr. Emerson, I agree with the opposing counsel. That evidence is extremely prejudicial. Hence, I can’t allow it.”
Jamie: “Your Honor, with all due respect, the evidence you are suppressing negates a third of my client’s case. Just because it is prejudicial to the opposing counsel’s case does not mean it is not admissible. In fact, it is more probative than prejudicial, and that is, in fact, the standard. The defendant has several drinking and driving violations. The facts of this case are that he was, in fact, drunk again and driving. They even admitted this in their answer.