The following excerpt is from United States v. Gomez, 19-50313 (9th Cir. 2021):
We weigh the probative value of a parole officer's testimony against its prejudicial effect on a case-by-case basis. See United States v. Bagley, 641 F.2d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 1981) (holding that under the circumstances of that case, the probation officer's testimony was not prejudicial); United States v. Butcher, 557 F.2d 666, 669-70 (9th Cir. 1977) (balancing the probative value against the potential prejudice of police and parole-officer testimony, and ultimately determining that the testimony was admissible).[16]
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.