In a drunk driving case, why can't the jury be told the driver was drunk

by Angelica
(Lehigh County. PA.)

I was rear ended at a red light 3 years ago by a drunk driver at 10am. The trial for my injuries is finally set for March 8. I was just told by my lawyer that the evidence of the driver being drunk was not admissible in court because her pledged guilty to hitting me.

How can that key information be withheld from a jury who is to decide the outcome.
This is taking place at Lehigh County Courthouse in Lehigh county, pa.

All State insured the habitual drunk driver who was driving with a suspended license for yes, drunk driving!!

I am sueing for my medical bills and pain of suffering.

Thank You
Angelica


Answer:

Hello Angelica,

You attorney is the best person to answer this question. We have not clue what the local court/evidence rule you are bound by.

Our general understanding (which probably does not apply to you) is that a "drunk driver" would be highly prejudicial and the jury would probably not get to the amount of damages based on the actual injury, but because of the fact that he/she was drunk.

The Federal Evidence Rules (FER 403) - btw, you are not bound by this rules as you are not in federal court, exclude relevant evidence if it's probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice, it's cumulative, or wastes the court's time.

It's unfair. No question. But if the fact that this driver was declare liable (the fact that he hit you is not in dispute, - he already said he hit you), then the fact that he was drunk is irrelevant to "how much" damages he caused.

If, however, she/he is saying that he is not liable, it's very possible this information is relevant.

Talk to you attorney because we do not know what your local rules say.

Please see: http://www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com/Fault-for-the-Accident.html

Good Luck,
http://www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com