If there is no conviction, what can be said about extrinsic evidence of bad conduct?

When considering extrinsic evidence of bad conduct, the fundamental principle is that such evidence is typically not admissible to prove a person's character or conduct unless it has resulted in a conviction. If someone has not been convicted of a crime, the introduction of evidence related to their bad conduct is generally deemed inadmissible to avoid unfair prejudice and ensure that the focus remains on relevant evidence that can substantiate the claims made in court.

The rationale behind this approach is to prevent juries from making judgments based on character rather than evidence pertinent to the case. The legal system strives for fairness and objectivity, which would be undermined if extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts were freely admitted without a conviction.

In summary, the standard rule prohibits the introduction of extrinsic evidence of bad conduct when there has been no legal conviction, reinforcing the notion that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty in a court of law.