If a person has been arrested 100 times...and this is 101, that is relevant information to me about the likelihood the crime was committed.
A 75 year old man arrested for assault who has never had so much as a traffic ticket in his life is less likely to commit and assault than a 29 year old who has already been arrested 35 times. To me it is totally relevant.
It's questionable whether it's relevant or not. I mean, nobody is questioning whether Floyd was guilty of a crime, nor is anybody questioning the dangerous narcotics he loaded into his system. Passing counterfeit money is a federal offense, and they have the phony bill as evidence. So even if his record were allowed in the trial, I can't see that it would make a difference one way or another.
In this particular case, it may not matter. I dont see why people should freak out that the jury will be informed of his prior record.
Floyd’s prior record is irrelevant to the actions the cop is accused of.
then i guess you should obey law enforcement...
past acts, for a career criminal, should be introduced to explain its own, acceptable way of life.
if someone wants to play billy bad ass, then i would say you need to be prepared to get that back.