Legal Definitions - inflammatory

In a legal context, something is described as inflammatory if it is likely to provoke intense emotional reactions, such as anger, outrage, or strong prejudice, rather than encouraging calm, rational consideration of the facts.

When evidence or statements are deemed inflammatory, it means their primary effect would be to stir up powerful emotions in a jury or judge, potentially distracting them from the objective facts of a case and leading to a decision based on feeling rather than law.

Here are some examples:

• Example 1: Graphic Visual Evidence

  Imagine a civil lawsuit concerning a minor car accident where the key issue is who was responsible for a fender bender. During the trial, one party attempts to introduce extremely graphic, close-up photographs of a small cut on their arm, taken immediately after the accident, even though the injury has long since healed and its severity is not a disputed point in the case.

  Explanation: These photographs would be considered inflammatory because their shocking nature is likely to provoke strong sympathy for the injured party and anger towards the other driver, potentially swaying the jury's decision on fault based on emotion rather than the actual evidence of negligence related to the collision itself.

• Example 2: Emotionally Charged Testimony

  Consider a contract dispute between two businesses. During a witness's testimony, instead of focusing on the terms of the agreement or the actions of the parties, the witness repeatedly launches into unrelated personal attacks against the opposing company's CEO, describing them as a "ruthless corporate predator who crushes small businesses and exploits their employees," even though these characterizations have no direct bearing on whether the contract was breached.

  Explanation: These statements are inflammatory because they are designed to generate strong negative feelings and prejudice against the opposing party, distracting the jury from the legal terms of the contract and the factual evidence of its performance or breach. The goal is to incite an emotional response rather than to present relevant facts.

• Example 3: Prejudicial Opening Statement

  In a criminal trial for simple theft, the prosecutor begins their opening statement by describing the defendant as a "menace to society who preys on the innocent and deserves to be locked away forever," even before any evidence has been presented and when the charge is non-violent. The prosecutor then continues to use highly charged language throughout, appealing to fear and moral outrage rather than outlining the evidence they intend to present.

  Explanation: This language is inflammatory because it aims to incite strong anger and fear in the jury against the defendant, creating a presumption of guilt and a desire for harsh punishment based on emotion rather than the specific evidence related to the theft charge. It seeks to prejudice the jury before they have heard the facts of the case.