Probative or Prejudicial? Woman Charged With Road Rage Killing of Sailor Has History of Restraining Orders From Ex-Boyfriends

The shocking death of U.S. Sailor Zach Buob, 39, has become even more disturbing with the disclosure that the other driver, Darla Jackson, has been repeatedly hit with restraining orders, including one from a boyfriend who said that she said that she would run him over with her car.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder. Police say that she got into an argument with Buob in rush-hour traffic and witnesses say that she chased Buob and rammed his motorcycle. She is accused of pushing him 300 feet until he fell off his bike and then ran him over.

The prior orders will introduce a major fight over admission of evidence. Two of Jackson’s ex-boyfriends filed restraining orders against her and one said that she said that she wanted to run him over with her car. That can be a throw away comment in anger: “I wish I could hit him with my car.” However, it just so happens to be the same act that she is now accused of doing with lethal effect. Weighing the obvious huge prejudicial impact of such evidence against its materiality will be a difficult question.

According to NBC, former boyfriends said that she would make up threats and one said Jackson threatened to “kill him” and that she was going to “hurt herself, then call police and blame him.”

To make matters worse for the defense, there is a videotape that shows Jackson following Buob. Her lawyer says that he kicked her car and that she followed him and collided. However, the affirmative act of following generally works against a defendant in a road rage case.