{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Voices at Temple","provider_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices","title":"\u201cGruesome\u201d Evidence, Science, and Rule 403 - Voices at Temple","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ruyQV21Ulb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/gruesome-evidence-science-rule-403\/\">\u201cGruesome\u201d Evidence, Science, and Rule 403<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/gruesome-evidence-science-rule-403\/embed\/#?secret=ruyQV21Ulb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;\u201cGruesome\u201d Evidence, Science, and Rule 403&#8221; &#8212; Voices at Temple\" data-secret=\"ruyQV21Ulb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/12\/Warning-Graphic-Content.png","thumbnail_width":840,"thumbnail_height":560,"description":"Can science step in and assist in Rule 403 determinations of \u201cunfair prejudice\u201d? When confronted with \u201cgruesome\u201d evidence, all too often autopsy photos or images of severe injuries, judges must assess whether there is a risk of unfair prejudice or misleading the jury and then, if the risk is present, \u201cmay\u201d exclude the proof.1 Yet there is no court-dictated workable metric for assessing when either risk is present beyond boilerplate terminology such as whether the \u201c[e]vidence\u2026 makes a conviction more likely because it provokes an emotional response in the jury or otherwise tends to affect adversely the jury\u2019s attitude toward the defendant wholly apart from its judgment as to his guilt or innocence of the crime charged.\u201d2\u00a0The standard is akin to that used to describe when material is obscene \u2014 an \u201cI know it when I see it\u201d approach to decision-making.3 This approach begets arbitrariness.\u00a0That this is so may be seen by contrasting claims of unfair prejudice in criminal and civil cases.\u00a0The default in criminal seems to be that of admissibility, demonstrated in the extreme &hellip;"}