Let me give you another example in the context of personal injury and accident law.

An innocent driver minding his on business gets crashed into by a drunk driver.

If the injury lawyer and the insurance defense lawyer can not reach a settlement and the case goes to jury trial, some courts, at the request of the defense lawyer, will not let the jury know the defendant was convicted of drunk driving and caused the crash.

Sound outrageous?

Who would believe it?

How do they get away with that crap?

After all, the jury would surely want to know why the guy crashed into the other vehicle.

They take the position that if they admit fault at trial, then it does not matter– it is irrelevant– what the driver did because all that needs to be decided is the amount of damage done to the plaintiff, injury victim, if any.

And, just when you thought you heard it all, some judges actually agree to hide the drunk driving conviction from the jury.

The victim gets revictimized and the perpetrator gains a benefit for his outrageous conduct.

And all the while the defense lawyer and the defendant sit at trial like little choir boys, making it seem like the victim is creating a big deal out of the situation. Surely, anyone who admits fault must be a decent guy.

It is nothing more than manipulation, deceit and dishonesty– a fraud against juries.

Intolerable.