yern4 quotes 1Brent1 >> the jury might see the amnesty agreement as an admission of guitl. Well duh! They admitted guilt when they accepted the amnesty. <<
and yern4 responds: >> Seen as an admission of guilt in the RMBS case. It would have prejudiced the jury. <<
It's misleading to quote the wrong legal standard, as you no doubt know.
The amnesty agreement, the guilty pleas, etc. would no doubt have substantial probative value on the points Rambus wanted to prove. The evidentiary question was not whether it was prejudicial, but whether it was unfairly or unduly prejudicial, outweighing its probative value. Here's the relevant California Rule 352:
"352. The court in its discretion may exclude evidence if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that
its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b)
create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the
issues, or of misleading the jury."
As I commented earlier, in post #427115 (directed more at the guilty pleas, but equally applicable to the "amnesty agreement"):
>> This doesn't mean that very strong, indeed rock solid and unimpeachable evidence of some fact at issue in the case, like the guilty pleas to antitrust violations, should be excluded. It means that the judge can exclude evidence, for example, that one of the individual executive price-fixers is a drunk, is a child molester, held up a 7-11 (or its Korean equivalent) when he was 17 and discharged a gun into the ceiling of the 7-11, or is a habitual speeder through grade school zones -- each of which might create strong feelings against the defendant who employed the bad guy. Such evidence would have no probative value whatever as to the issues at stake in the price-fixing case, so the prejudice plainly would outweigh the probative value.
But the guity pleas prove up, indeed beyond any honest doubt, essential elements of the violations at issue in the price-fixing case.
The thought that the guilty pleas might be excluded in those circumstances is risible, laugh-provoking (except, apparently to bashers). The pleas no doubt will create strong feelings against the defendants, but that occurs because they in fact committed the bad acts, and it's hardly "unfair" to hold them accountable for them. << http://premium.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=427115&pt=msg&mid=7886653