Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

But it wasnt testimony or evidence tho?

The issue with presenting a fictional video is that it can influence in a way or another the final decision and it can also create a precedent.

If someone wants to watch fiction, it can do it in a more appropriate place and not in a court of law.

So in this particular case, a family member shared it during post-sentencing impact statements. This is after the jury has rendered their decision, and it is up to the judge to decide how severe the sentence should be.

Family can read fictional poems, personal thoughts, videos or photo montages. They can put up a picture of the deceased, and make statements like if "Bob was here, he would say x, y, and z"

The point is to influence the sentence.

Provided that the family was very clear this was not historic video, and I think it was, then one can see how this isn't obviously out of bounds

It wasn't valid testimony or evidence, but it biases the jury.

The video was after the jury had rendered their decision.

The video was aired before the sentence was given if I understood correctly, so one could argue the judge may have been influenced one way or the other by the video.

The purpose of that phase is to influence the judge.

That's why you have the family of the deceased reading tearful letters, crayon drawings from children missing their parents, and other things of that nature introduced during pre sentencing impact statements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com