Not a lawyer, but I think stuff like this is a minefield. The defense would try to get it thrown out as prejudicial and without the suspect testifying all they could do is show a picture to an officer of it who affirms that he saw it on the car and enter it into evidence, but they could only indirectly talk about it in opening and closing because nobody can personally testify about the motivations behind the sticker.
It could, its just hard for the prosecution to handle. Because it’s not direct evidence of the mindset for that incident and it’s inflammatory to the jury the chances of it being ruled as prejudicial and not probative is high. That’s why past criminal convictions are also often excluded from trials.
Not a lawyer, but I think stuff like this is a minefield. The defense would try to get it thrown out as prejudicial and without the suspect testifying all they could do is show a picture to an officer of it who affirms that he saw it on the car and enter it into evidence, but they could only indirectly talk about it in opening and closing because nobody can personally testify about the motivations behind the sticker.
But if the defense was “I panicked and hit the gas when people surrounded me” this is something that would poke quite a few holes in that argument.
It could, its just hard for the prosecution to handle. Because it’s not direct evidence of the mindset for that incident and it’s inflammatory to the jury the chances of it being ruled as prejudicial and not probative is high. That’s why past criminal convictions are also often excluded from trials.