I like law. But sometimes, I must admit I can't figure out what the hell judges are thinking.

There's a piece of evidence. It practically shouts guilt, and helps to proves what the plaintiff is trying to prove. But it's not allowed to be entered into evidence. Why?

Because the defense would suffer "considerable prejudice". What the hell does that mean? The jury might get the idea that because they did something that makes them look guilty, they might actually be guilty?

Isn't that the idea?