0504

I think the photos are admissible and cannot imagine a judge excluding them. They have solid probative value. They show the jury what the crime scene looked like and establish the "corpus delicti" (essence of the crime).  If it's a murder case, the state must prove that a murder took place. When evidence has significant probative value, it is almost impossible for prejudicial effect to "substantially outweigh" it, which is the Rule 403 standard.

One of the key factors in balancing probative value against "UNFAIR" prejudice is whether the emotional reaction caused by the evidence is inherent to the case itself or is outside the case. The prejudice aroused by showing Susan and John at a Trump rally or snorting coke is prejudice brought in from outside the facts of the case. No issue in John's rape trial involves snorting coke or his politics. By contrast, the prejudice that arises from the crime scene photo is prejudice inherent in the case itself. The case does involve a bloody dead body. Most judges follow the principle that where the gruesomeness or prejudicial impact of evidence arises from the nature of the crime itself -- i.e., the defendant chose to commit a gruesome crime -- evidence revealing that gruesomeness is never "unfairly" prejudicial. Unfair prejudice is emotionalism that arises from factors having nothing to do with the merits of the case.

Blood and gore is not the same thing as prejudice. Prejudice means that the jury will be distracted away from the relevant facts.

** It is important that you stop here for at least a few minutes before resuming the class, because the next phase will ask you to simulate being a juror who must deliberate about evidence a few hours after it has actually been introduced. Go do something to distract you and then return and go to the next screen.