Epstein Secrets

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 actual operation to produce a confusion in the minds of the jur

should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandro, 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)). See also Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improp

lame the jury and appeal to the jury's emotions, or solely to prove bad character. See Wright v. State, 3 EFTA00793361 19 So. 3d 277 (Ha. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 3d 600 (Ha. 4th DCA 2009). "If the introduction of the evidence tends in actual operation to produce a confusion in the minds of the jurors

ce should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandra 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Ha. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Ha. 1949)); see also Agrofollajes, SA v. El Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 48 So. 3d 976 (Ha. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improperly beco

"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. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). "(I)f the introduction of the evidence tends in actual operation to produce a confusion in the minds of the jur

review and evaluate same prior to trial; causing unfair prejudice. Escutia v. Greenleaf Products, Inc., 886 So. 2d 1059, 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. DU Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., Nos. 3D07- 2322, 3D07-2318, 3D07-1036, 2009 WL 4828975, at *16 (Fla. 3d DCA Dec. 16, 2009) (stating "F

e jury's emotions.' Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 13 Tonja Haddad, P.A. • 315 SE 7'h Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00585432 (Fla. 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 26 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). See also Canales v. Compania De Vapores ReaIma, S.A., 564 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (Any probative value o

should be excluded." City of Miami v. Calandro, 376 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (citing Perper v. Edell, 44 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1949)). See also Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 48 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect when evidence improp