Is bringing up playing FPS shooters in a trial to make defendant look bad common practice?
<p>One of the more bizarre moments of Rittenhouse trial was prosecutor bringing up Call of Duty. Not sure what that was supposed to do, I presume to explain to jury that if you kill people in video games you are more likely to do so in real life.</p>
<p>Leaving the validity of this proposition I wonder if this is a common tactic by prosecutors.</p>
<p>note: I am new to law SE so IDK if questions like this are allowed, since they rely on people guessing %, and not talking about specific law, feel free to close if not appropriate.</p>

<p>The specific tactic of referring to a defendant's playing of FPS games is probably not common, but it is surely common for a prosecutor to do whatever s/he can to make the defendant look bad.</p>
<p>The judge may prevent such questions if they are held not to be relevant, particularly if the defense objects. But the judge has wide discretion on what is and is not relevant.</p>
<p>It could be argued that frequently play of such a game shows an inclination to violence, or trains a person to react in a violent Way. I am not asserting that that is true, but  the argument might be plausible enough for a judge to let it go to the jury.</p>
<p>In any case there is a long history of prosecutors introducing allegations of dubious relevance that they think will harm the accused in the eyes of the jury. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.</p>

united-states