I repeat. Did you read the article and the reasoning? Did you google

rule 404? Seems the evidence about prior bad deeds was important in attaining a conviction but was not properly admissible. When a judge allows inadmissible evidence and the accused is convicted the verdict is often overturned and the defendant gets a new trial. Understand what happened now?

In response to this post by Hokieesith

Posted: 04/26/2024 at 11:30AM

New York justice system finally delivering JUSTICE!!!! -- ResistHoo 04/26/2024 08:46AM

Good Lord! ** -- Hokieesith 04/26/2024 10:01AM

Good lord, what? Did you read the article? Do you understand what -- 81_Hokie 04/26/2024 10:57AM

LOL. I said Good Lord! and you got all of that out of it? ** -- Hokieesith 04/26/2024 11:17AM

Good lord!... You seemed outraged but I guess it is ambiguous. You could -- 81_Hokie 04/26/2024 11:23AM

That the verdict was overturned in light of what seemed -- Hokieesith 04/26/2024 11:24AM

New trial. Still guilty. ** -- HoodatB 04/26/2024 1:53PM

I repeat. Did you read the article and the reasoning? Did you google -- 81_Hokie 04/26/2024 11:30AM

Duh. But that isn't what you accused me of. -- Hokieesith 04/26/2024 11:39AM

I repeat. Did you read the article and the reasoning? Did you google

Insert a Link