About: King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff, V. Malcolm Fraser, Defendant Cause No. 12-1-01886-0 Knt was in truth and fact King County Superior Court, State of Washington, Plaintiff V. Sound Doctrine Church of Enumclaw Washington.
Judge Lori K. Smith and King County Prosecutors1 spit upon Rule 403. Which to anyone who has watched the trial video, knows it is both self-evidently corrupt and appalling.
Judge Lori K. Smith and Prosecutor Jason Simmons did not just turn Rule 403 inside out; they abused the Rule to perform a wicked deed.
Instead of using a hammer to build a house Judge Lori K. Smith and Prosecutor Jason Simmons used Rule 403 to pound the defendent senseless. See the trial video.
Judge Lori K. Smith and the Prosecutors used Rule 403 to keep out any arguments, including openly rejecting the Washington State Constitution in favor of the defense while lawlessly allowing Jason Simmons to stir up emotions or manipulate the jury. Remember, do not lose your soul during jury duty.
- Additional Facts: Deprivation of Honest Service Crime, Rule 403, Federal Judges Rebuke King County Prosecutors, Trial Video, Part 1.
It is time to pass L.O.P. laws. Loss of Privilege laws would introduce criminal laws that punish Judges and Prosecutors for blatant Right Rape. No longer do Prosecutors’ and Judges’ arguments mean anything as they continually, with wanton bias, commit Right Rape.
Judge Lori K. Smith and King County Prosecutors1 spit upon Rule 403. Which to anyone who has watched the trial video, knows it is both self-evidently corrupt and appalling.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)
Rule 403
Expert Statement
How Rule 403 Ensures Fair Trials in Federal Courts
One of the most remarkable things about the U.S. justice system is the long-lasting, expansive Federal Rules of Evidence. While there are certainly other factors at play, the Federal Rules of Evidence make it much more likely that both a prosecutor and defendant will get a fair trial. Truly, it is what makes America a nation governed by the rule of law, rather than the rule of men.
The Federal Rules of Evidence have many nuances and exceptions. There is plenty of case law that explores these rules in great detail. In this post, however, I want to discuss Rule 403. Rule 403 is an extremely important rule that helps ensure that trials are fair. Even if you aren’t appearing in federal court anytime soon, having a solid understanding of Rule 403 can help you see why our Federal Rules of Evidence are one major part of what makes America great.
Rule 403: Some Basics
So what is Rule 403? While it is a short rule, the practical implications are much more nuanced. Rule 403 states: “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”
Judge Lori K. Smith spit-on, undermined and throughly by conspiring with King County Prosecutors voided Rule 403 in order to lychlaw a Christian Church they were offended by.
As you can see, there are several things going on here. First, the rule is talking about what types of evidence can be excluded. You probably already know that just because something could be thought of as evidence does not necessarily mean that a court will admit it. As just one example, hearsay evidence is not introduced in courts—even if it could theoretically indicate that the defendant actually committed a crime.
Rule 403 goes one step further, however, and outlines the types of evidence that cannot be included. These six examples are broad and they have their own examples and case law associated with them. Importantly, a judge is supposed to engage in a weighing test when considering whether to exclude the evidence. Put another way, the judge must weigh the usefulness of the evidence versus the potential drawbacks of letting the prosecutor or defendant go forward with that specific piece of evidence.
A good rule of thumb is to think of Rule 403 as the “prejudice rule.” Also, it’s critical to note that Rule 403 heavily favors judicial discretion. Judges have lots of leeway in determining whether a certain piece of evidence is admissible under Rule 403. As just one example, let’s say that a judge is overseeing a murder trial. The prosecution wants to introduce graphic photos of the victim at the crime scene. The defense attorneys may object to the introduction of this evidence because it could possibly inflame the jurors’ emotions. Upon hearing both arguments, the judge will have to decide whether to allow the evidence or not.
Finally, as a general principle, Rule 403 favors admissibility. Put another way, in order to exclude evidence under Rule 403, the risks must “substantially outweigh” the evidence’s probative value. To reiterate, this is a judgment call that the judge must seriously consider before rendering their decision. Judges also have the option to consider a limiting instruction to the jury, rather than fully excluding the evidence under Rule 403.
Significant Case Law
Rule 403 was only introduced in 1975. That being said, the rule has already been shaped by a number of significant cases that have occurred since then.
The first case is Old Chief v. United States. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court was looking at an instance where a defendant’s prior felony conviction was sought to be introduced at trial. The defendant argued that introducing the full record of conviction would prejudice the jury and potentially result in a wrongful conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately held that where a defendant offered to stipulate to that conviction, the prosecution couldn’t introduce the entire conviction record. In other words, it would be unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
Another interesting case is called United States v. Morales-Aldahondo. In this 2007 case, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals was debating whether to introduce certain emotionally impactful evidence. There was concern that introducing this evidence could be prejudicial toward the defendant. In the end, the Tenth Circuit held that there wasn’t an explicit requirement to “scrub the trial” of all emotionally impactful evidence. This cut back on some of the protections of Rule 403, meaning that a defendant wouldn’t be able to exclude every type of emotional evidence that could place their case in a bad light.
Finally, there is United States v. Cunningham. This was a Third Circuit Court of Appeals case that highlighted the need for judges to personally review sensitive evidence and consider its potential impact on jurors. Essentially, the Third Circuit held that the trial court committed a reversible error by sending particularly disturbing pornography videos to the juror room. Essentially, the Third Circuit found that the judge didn’t properly engage in the Rule 403 balancing test before doing so.
Balancing Prosecutorial and Defendant Goals
Those are just some of the cases that have grappled with the text and ramifications of Rule 403. While we could discuss more case law, it is probably more important to think about what the rule is trying to achieve and how it serves both prosecutors and defendants.
Rule 403 is so crucial because it keeps fairness at its core. The fact of the matter is that every trial is slightly unique. Having cut-and-dry evidentiary rules could lead to injustice. This is why the discretionary element of Rule 403 is so powerful. The creators of the Federal Rules of Evidence recognized that judges on the ground will have the most discrete information to make the best possible decision. With guidance from the weighing test, these judges can make objective calls and ensure that the prosecutor and defendant are getting a fair trial.
That’s not all. Rule 403 protects the jury. Let’s face it: serving on a jury can be confusing for many people. It would be difficult to assume that an average juror could decide what is unduly prejudicial or not. Rule 403 takes that thinking out of their hands and lets the judge make the final call.
Finally, Rule 403 helps the trial maintain focus. The prosecutor, defense, and jury can focus on the most pertinent evidence at hand. Rather than getting sidetracked by prejudicial and/or irrelevant evidence, all members of the trial can efficiently focus on the most important facts. Not only is it better for the prosecutor and defense teams, but it actually makes the judicial system more efficient as a whole.
Overall, Rule 403 is one of the more important rules within the Federal Rules of Evidence. It ensures that trials are fair, efficient, and centered on the relevant facts at hand. Put another way, it is an essential tool for maintaining the balance and integrity of the American legal system. Even if you haven’t stepped foot in a courtroom before, understanding the importance of Rule 403 can help you appreciate why our justice system is so robust, free, and fair.
Wa. Court Corruption
Disclaimer & Info
Basic Information
Judge and Police Corruption
King County Court Ideology Prosecutions
Seattle Washington
City of Enumclaw Police
King County Prosecutors
Roughly 2010 Frame Up
Enumclaw Police
Chief Judge Beth M. Andrus
Chief Judge Lori K. Smith
Detective Grant McCall
King County Prosecutors
Short List Below
Judge Beth Andrews whitewashed the crimes of Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall, setting into motion the whitewashing of the City of Enumclaw’s criminal activities.
Judge Lori K. Smith purposely created a "family court" in a criminal trial. In other words, Judge Lori K. Smith, because of her prejudicial mindset, threw out the concept of evidence and rights of the accused.
Judge Smith, being raised to her position by prosecutors and as reflected on her website, is so narrowly focused on her agenda that aspects of criminal law are undermined.
Judge Beth Andrews and Judge Lori K. Smith created the lawlessness inherent in the Family Court with a criminal trial. Combined with Seattle’s police prosecutor corruption, the ideology-driven trial of Detective McCall’s foolish religious beliefs and police power abuse was steamrolled ahead.
Thus, prosecutors were enabled to rid the jury pool of anyone who believed in evidence. Literally, King County Prosecutors asked potential jurors if anyone thought that evidence was necessary for a criminal trial. Such were sent packing.
The city of Enumclaw Police backed Baptist "Detective" Grant McCall’s contradictory, self-righteous religious beliefs with abusive police tactics to support Mr. McCall’s criminal hate crime activities.
The City of Enumclaw Police was thus able to frame an innocent man with zero evidence because Detective McCall was creating a crime that did not and was impossible to commit.
Fact is, had any authority done their job the criminal activity of Grant McCall would have been quickly revealed.
More information is located at:
enumclaw.com
consider.info
Post Number
This Post's ID Number Is= 8303
- Remember the Post ID Number.
- Enter the post number and it will be find.
See Post ID System For List Of Posts