This seems applicable for our defense of civil rights cases, albeit the decision comes from a criminal case. The victim’s mention of high profile police brutality cases, which happened twice in the trial in this case, should have been excluded. Even though the Court does not disagree that there was relevance to the references to high profile police brutality cases as they tended to explain the victim’s state of mind, which was indeed relevant, even a limiting instruction is not sufficient to combat the prejudicial nature of such testimony, and the testimony thus should have been stricken altogether. By the same token, the New Jersey Supreme Court would disallow evidence proffered by the police as to horrific incidents of harm to officers and shootings in the line of duty and the like.
