I've been surprised by silly tactical manoevers people have used in the US legal system, but I think this is rather tacky.
As a picture of late mob boss John Gotti flashed on a screen in a Manhattan courtroom Tuesday...
This is a trial for his son, not his father. Wouldn't this be a good case of prejudicing the jury?
Prosecutors flashed the elder Gotti's picture on a giant screen opposite the jury box.
Alongside the smiling elder Gotti was a quote taken from a 1989 federal wiretap: "Who's gonna challenge me? Who's gonna defy me?"
Again, why would they find a need to put his father's face up in lights AND place his father's words from some ancient wiretap? To prejudice the jury? Am I missing something here?
So the question for debate: Do you think it's appropriate for a federal prosecutor to use a defendant's relative, using dramatic props, as evidence of the defendant's guilt?