The following excerpt is from People v. Purtell, 153 N.E. 72, 243 N.Y. 273 (N.Y. 1926):
months. The rules of evidence, nevertheless, are to be as impartially applied to this defendant on this his third trial as if he had never before been accused of crime. Care must be taken in determining whether or not an error in the admission of evidence has affected his substantial rights not to be influenced by these previous offenses. The past life of the defendant may affect his credibility with the jury, but cannot affect the rules of law according to which all men in this state are entitled to a trial, no matter who they may be or what they have done. Our criminal [243 N.Y. 276]procedure and our rules of evidence, according to which crimes are to be proved, may be refined until they lose much of their usefulness and cease to accomplish the purpose for which they were created. On the other hand, they must not be hastily brushed aside or misapplied in the zeal to find a guilty party. Experience has proved that a substantial adherence to our fundamental rules of evidence is the safest and wisest way to administer the criminal law. The necessity for a careful application of our rules of evidence was well stated in Rutherford v. Richardson, [1923] A. C. (H. of L.) 1, by Lord Birkenhead:
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.