Originally Posted by merlinextraligh

The judge didn't exclude the evidence of alcohol consumption. She conditioned its admissability on the defendant testifying.

Webb isn't charged with DUI. Thus, his alcohol consumption is of limited relavence to the crime he's charged with, and it would have a prejudicial effect, that the Judge determined outwieghed its relevance.

However, if Webb testifies to his BS story that he didn't know he hit her, then the Alcohol consumption becomes relevant to impeach him, and gets admitted.

I would have let it in anyway. However, the Judge definitely has a reasonable basis for her ruling, and she's taking away an appeal point that the Defendant could use on appeal to over turn a conviction.

And she's put the defendant in a very tight box. Don't testify, and you've got virtually no defense; Testify and get hit with the alcohol hammer. Thus he's still ikely to get convicted, and the conviction has a better chance of withstanding an appeal.

So don't get too upset just yet.