Do you think it is too easy for lawyers to get relevant evidence excluded in lawsuits in the U.S.?

Question

In the interest of justice, all the relevant facts, testimony, and documents should be able to be presented in a lawsuit, but successful lawsuits in the U.S. are often determined by which lawyers are most successful at keeping the opponent's evidence out of court. What has been your experience with this?

Answer 1

I've seen evidence rejected in criminal cases. Once a guy accused of a murder 110 miles away had the video tape of him at work, witnesses at work and his time clock record rejected by the prosecution. He was convicted. I was a juror once where the prosecution lied as well. I voted to convict. Two nights later the lie was on the news. I contacted the judge to change my vote based on this. Told it was too late. The man went to prison for 15 years because of false testamony, a lie, told by a co conspiritor that actually committed the theft himself. Lawsuits are nothing. People are executed for excluded evidence. US law and justice is in a shambles. Since this experience, I have refused to serve on juries and stated why, risking contempt of court in doing so. And plea bargains are at the heart of false testamony.

Answer 2

It's a little strange when sometimes relevant evidence in a case is excluded for being "prejudicial".

Those jurors who are easily prejudiced by relevant information shouldn't really be on the jury in the first place. They lack an open mind to the evidence and therefore should be excused during the voir dire process.