[roybean]

In civil litigation is there a balance here?

My understanding is that both parties are to be careful not to pejudice the other.

Is one party more obligated not to prejudice other?

[hannah]

Originally Posted by roybean

In civil litigation is there a balance here?

My understanding is that both parties are to be careful not to pejudice the other.

Is one party more obligated not to prejudice other?

Check your state bar's code of professional conduct for attorneys to see exactly how they word it. It's basically ethics. All states codes of professional conduct are based on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as set up by the ABA. You will wanting to be looking at ABA Rule 3.1 through 3.9. Link.

Look in your state's Advocate's section. It will be worded either exactly like the ABA's or very similar.

Both sides if represented by licensed attorneys are equally required to adhere to the code.

[apexcrsrvc]

You're job is to disadvantage the adversary. There is nothing wrong with putting on evidence which is prejudicial. It is the judge's job to determined whether it's probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.

Read Evidence. Not Civ Pro.

[Aftermath]

Originally Posted by apexcrsrvc

You're job is to disadvantage the adversary. There is nothing wrong with putting on evidence which is prejudicial. It is the judge's job to determined whether it's probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.

Read Evidence. Not Civ Pro.

We are talking about what a judge does after an objection?

So much inadmissible evidence goes in because trial adversaries fail to object...you could probably put in prejudical hearsay if opposing counsel ignored the rules of evidence.