0511

I think judges would reach different results. I would probably exclude the testimony. Although the background of witnesses is of some minimal probative value, there is substantial prejudicial effect of injecting "Hooters" into evidence. This reference is prejudicial because it concerns sex and triggers stereotypes about the kind of women who work there.

Questions? E-mail tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0511.

The next witness is the 5-year-old Julian McGrath.

Q: If it's ok with you Julian, I'd like to ask you a few questions. Can you tell me how old you are?
A: Five.
Q: And what's your birthday?
A: July 15th.
Q: Do you know where you were born?
A: Toronto.
Q: Toronto? I thought you were from Buffalo?
A: I moved to Buffalo with my Mommy.
Q: And for the past six weeks you have been living with Sonny, right?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you and Sonny have fun together?
A: Yes.
Q: What kind of things would you do with Sonny?
A: He taught me how to do a sleeper hold like Keith J. Strongbow.
Q: That's nice. Anything else?
A: He taught me how to pee on a building.
Q: Really?
A: And he taught me that Styx was one of the greatest American rock bands and they only got a bad rap because most critics are cynical assholes.

If you were the judge, and one of the attorneys made a Rule 403 objection, would you exclude any of these last three statements? When you have decided on your answer, click here .