When the paralegal in the civil parrot case was interviewing the neighbor, the neighbor started to tell about the prior shooting. The paralegal stopped the neighbor. Was the paralegal correct in not wasting time on the prior shooting? Group of answer choices The paralegal was incorrect because, if the defendant testified that he would not shoot a little creature, the neighbor's testimony would be admissible to discredit the credibility of the defendant. The paralegal was correct because the prior shooting is character evidence, which is never admissible in a civil trial. The paralegal was incorrect because the information could have been useful in the neighbor's case in chief. The paralegal was correct because the prior shooting only tended to prove propensity