Wilson also argued that evidence of future dangerousness should be barred because its potential to prejudice or mislead the jury outweighs any probative value. Garaufis rejected that argument as well.
"So long as the Government's evidence is appropriately tailored to proving Wilson's future dangerousness, and so long as Wilson has the opportunity both to contest the prosecution's evidence (including with the empirical studies discussed above) and to provide his own mitigating evidence, he will not suffer unfair prejudice," and the jury will be able to decide for itself how strong the evidence is, the judge said.
Garaufis said that Wilson was still free to challenge specific evidence as unfairly prejudicial.
Wilson is represented by David Stern of Rothman, Schneider, Soloway & Stern; Colleen Brady; and Beverly Van Ness. The attorneys could not be reached for comment.
Eastern District Assistant U.S. Attorneys James McGovern and Celia Cohen represent the prosecution. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office declined to comment.
@|Brendan Pierson can be reached at bpierson@alm.com.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
