I've always wondered if the perfect murder involved pouring a large number of hair follicles on the scene.
What? I'm trying to follow this logic, help me out here :)
Among other things (like the fact that there is zero reason anyone would read it to a jury), judges have broad discretion to let evidence in/out. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403
They would just not let it be read to a jury as evidence. There are a small number of things not subject to 403's balancing rules, i don't think this would fall into any of them. (Most states have evidence codes based on the federal rules)
And even for the jury nullification part I think you'd have a decent shot of getting it admitted. Do you really think a judge could prevent you from arguing that it's not your handwriting without creating grounds for an appeal? If there is nothing to indicate that you actually knew the drugs were in your car then this could be a significant point of evidence. Anyway I'm not saying it would work in all cases, I just think there is enough of a chance of it working in some cases (or at least creating drama) that it would make for a decent art project.
The rest is essentially you suggesting that you can manufacture non-reliable evidence and introduce it.
The problem with this is that the evidence must have probative value, and generally be reliable, to be admitted.
" Do you really think a judge could prevent you from arguing that it's not your handwriting without creating grounds for an appeal?"
If your intent is to corrupt, confuse, or otherwise mislead a jury, yes, i think a judge will prevent you.
Even if he doesn't prevent you, he will strongly admonish the jury about it, and if another juror believes a given juror is not following instructions, they are likely to report them, and it will get dealt with.
This happens all the time.
As for grounds for appeal, generally, evidence rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Basically, the appellate court must find that the decision was wholly unsupported by the evidence, illegal, or clearly incorrect. Even then, it is likely to be found to be harmless error anyway, unless this is the only evidence.
Of course, you are welcome to believe what you want, what do I know.
Had the handwriting and name been that of the suspect, it would without doubt be used as evidence to crucify the suspect. However, if the handwriting and name is about someone else, then the evidence is regarded as confusing and thus discarded.
It looks to me as a realistic, maybe a bit cynical view of the legal system. Is this really how empirical evidence should be used?
I have no doubt that a judge can and would block the evidence if they thought the intent was to 'corrupt, confuse, or otherwise mislead.' What I do doubt is that the judge would automatically think that this was doing that.
E.g. how is this any different from "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit?"
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/jury-nullification-activ...