Nancy Grace once again painfully pointed out her total lack of understanding of the American System of Jurisprudence both as host of a HLN tabloid news show and as a former prosecutor.

A prosecutor from hell views their job as convicting the accused regardless of their guilty or innocence. Reasoning that bad people should be put away, because if they did not actually commit the crime then they must have done something just as bad in the past.

Nancy Grace seems to think that if a defense attorney objects to any evidence trying to be introduced by the prosecution then they must obviously be guilty. They are acting guilty because they don’t want to be presented to the jury in a bad light.

Nancy Grace: “No, because I`ve heard enough from you two.

Sue Moss, the reality is, evidentiary wise, they want to keep it out because it puts tot mom in a bad light when she is thinking of her own discomfort. She sees the discovery of her child`s skeleton on live coverage on TV and she asks for something to relieve her own set of hives she just got when she was watching TV.

All right. You know what? That`s why they don`t want it in.”

Sorry, Nancy but that is not the reason.

The job of the jury is the fair determination of facts which are in dispute.

Both parties to a criminal action in the American System of Jurisprudence can object to the introduction of the evidence on the grounds that it violates one or more rules of evidence. The rules of evidence vary from state to to state, but basically agree with the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time.
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice …

Exclusion for risk of unfair prejudice, … “Unfair prejudice” within its context means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.

In other words, facts or data should not be disclosed to the jury unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the facts substantially outweighs their prejudicial impact.

So, any attorney who is doing their job would object to the introduction of the video tape of Casey reacting to the discovery of Caylee remains on the Grounds of Prejudice. If the judge overrules it, then Casey’s attorney must save the point so that they have a basis for appealing the decision of the jury. Why? It is not because the video puts tot mom in a bad light. It is because the jury is supposed to rationally and fairly make a determination of the facts. Jury decisions based upon emotion and feelings rather than logic are not a fair determination of the facts. And, thus, can be appealed to an appellate court.

So, what Nancy Grace and all the other tabloid news shows are actually doing is tainting the jury pool, thereby, making a fair trial for Casey Anthony next to impossible. Further, having viewed these types of prejudicial evidence on cable television would be grounds for striking prospective jurors from serving on the criminal trial jury.

The only thing in Nancy’s favor on the Casey Anthony case is that she has finally managed to dump on somebody who is obviously guilty. Nevertheless, she is substantially increasing the cost of the upcoming criminal trail. And, is making it easier for Casey’s attorneys to appeal any conviction.