Epstein Secrets

ssarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions."' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009). Additionally, it is well-settled law that evidence of prior convictions, acquittals or arrests is irrelevant i

danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403 FLA. STAT. (2013); Dailey v. Multicon Development, Inc., 417 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). "'Unfair prejudice' has been described as 'an undue tendency to suggest de

evidence at trial, the mere mention of which would be prejudicial. Buy-Low Save Ctrs., Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Dailey v. Multicon Dev., Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, a motion in limine is proper to exclude any irrelevant and immateria

r cases as possible solely to impermissibly "inflame[] the jury or appeal [] improperly to the jury's emotions," or "solely to prove bad character." Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). "[I]f the introduction of the evidence tends in act

by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." § 90.403, Fla. Stat., Dailey v. Multicon Dev., Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). 'Unfair prejudice' has been described as 'an undue tendency to suggest decision

ssarily, an emotional one.' This rule of exclusion 'is directed at evidence which inflames the jury or appeals improperly to the jury's emotions."' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009). Here, the below-listed items undeniably have no bearing on Edwards's abuse of process or malicious prosecution

evidence at trial, the mere mention of which would be prejudicial. Buy-Low Save Ctrs., Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So. 2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Dailey v. Multicon Dev., Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla. 4th EFTA00598330 DCA 1982). Accordingly, a motion in limine is proper to exclude any irrelevan