Permitted Uses of Character Evidence: Module 3 of 6
TLDRThis script delves into the nuances of Federal Rule 404, which governs the admissibility of character evidence in criminal cases. It outlines permissible uses, including defendants introducing their own traits, and the process for proving character in court. It also covers the exceptions to Rule 404(b) for non-character purposes, such as motive or identity, and discusses the methods of proving character under Rule 405. Additionally, it touches on inadmissible evidence for public policy reasons, like subsequent remedial measures and offers to compromise, and specific rules for sex offense cases.
Takeaways
- 📚 Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of their own pertinent character traits to support their defense.
- 🚫 A pertinent character trait must relate to the crime or a defense to the crime, and character evidence must still be relevant to the case.
- 👮♂️ In U.S. vs. Nevada Ramirez, a police officer's attempt to introduce her job performance evaluations as character evidence was denied because it was not pertinent to the charges of drug and gun possession.
- 🚪 Once a defendant introduces evidence of a good character trait, the government may introduce pertinent character evidence to rebut, effectively 'opening the door' to character evidence.
- 🏥 Rule 404(a) also permits a criminal defendant to introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait of the victim, such as violence or aggression, to support a claim of self-defense.
- 🚫 Rule 404(b) generally prohibits evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act to prove a person's character, but allows exceptions for non-character purposes like motive, opportunity, intent, and identity.
- 🔍 In U.S. vs. Slaughter, evidence of a defendant's past instances of firearm possession was admissible to show opportunity in the current case.
- 🎭 Identity can sometimes be proven by showing that the crime was committed in a manner consistent with the defendant's modus operandi (MO).
- 📈 Rule 405 outlines three methods of proving character: through reputation in the community, personal knowledge of a witness, and specific instances of conduct.
- 🚫 Certain types of evidence are barred for public policy reasons, such as subsequent remedial measures, offers to compromise, offers to pay medical expenses, and evidence of insurance.
- 🛡️ In sex offense cases, evidence of the victim's sexual history is generally inadmissible to prevent victim blaming, but exceptions exist for showing the source of physical evidence or consent.
Q & A
What is the primary purpose of Federal Rule 404 in a criminal case?
-Federal Rule 404 allows a defendant in a criminal case to introduce evidence of their own pertinent character traits, which can help establish a defense or refute the charges.
What is a 'pertinent character trait' as mentioned in the script?
-A 'pertinent character trait' is a characteristic that relates to the crime or a defense to the crime, such as honesty in a fraud case or peacefulness in a case of violence.
Why did the court not allow the police officer's performance evaluations as character evidence in the case of United States versus Nevada, Ramirez?
-The court did not allow the performance evaluations because they did not consider the general competence at her job as a police officer to be pertinent to the charges of drug and gun possession.
What is the concept of 'opening the door' in the context of character evidence?
-The concept of 'opening the door' refers to when a defendant introduces character evidence, which then allows the prosecution to introduce their own character evidence to rebut the defendant's claims.
Can the prosecution introduce character evidence against a defendant if the defendant has not introduced any character evidence themselves?
-No, if a defendant does not 'open the door' by making character an issue, the prosecution cannot bring up character evidence against them.
What is the significance of Rule 404(a) in cases involving victims?
-Rule 404(a) allows a defendant to introduce evidence of a pertinent character trait of the victim, such as violence or aggression, to support a claim of self-defense.
What are the exceptions provided by Rule 404(b) for introducing evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act for non-character purposes?
-Rule 404(b) provides nine permitted non-character uses for introducing crimes or prior bad acts, including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, and lack of accident.
In what way can the prosecution use the defendant's modus operandi to prove identity in a crime?
-The prosecution can use the defendant's modus operandi to show that the manner in which the crime was committed is consistent with the defendant's method of operation, thereby suggesting that the defendant is the perpetrator.
What are the three methods of proving character as outlined by Rule 405?
-The three methods of proving character under Rule 405 are: 1) testimony as to the person's reputation in the community, 2) testimony of a witness with personal knowledge who can provide an opinion on the person's character, and 3) testimony about specific instances of the person's conduct from which character can be inferred.
Why are subsequent remedial measures not admissible in court to prove negligence or blameworthiness?
-Subsequent remedial measures are not admissible to avoid discouraging individuals or entities from taking steps to prevent the recurrence of harmful events, as such actions could be used against them in legal proceedings.
What is the rationale behind the inadmissibility of offers to compromise under Rule 408?
-The rationale behind the inadmissibility of offers to compromise is to encourage parties to negotiate and resolve disputes out of court without fear that such negotiations could be used against them in legal proceedings.
How does Rule 409 treat offers to pay medical expenses in relation to proving liability for an injury?
-Under Rule 409, offers to pay medical expenses for an injury are not admissible to prove liability, allowing defendants to limit potential damages and encouraging the payment of injury-related expenses without fear of judicial repercussions.
Why is evidence of a party's insurance status generally not admissible to prove or disprove wrongful conduct?
-Evidence of insurance status is inadmissible to promote the public policy of obtaining insurance and to ensure that cases are decided on their merits rather than on who will bear the financial burden of damages.
What are the exceptions to the general inadmissibility of a victim's sexual history in a sex offense case?
-The exceptions include admissibility to show the source of physical evidence, to show consent in a relationship with the accused, and in civil cases where the evidentiary value outweighs the risk of prejudice.
Outlines
📜 Federal Rule 404: Character Evidence in Criminal Cases
This paragraph delves into the intricacies of Federal Rule 404, which governs the admissibility of character evidence in criminal cases. It explains that a defendant may introduce evidence of their own pertinent character traits to support their defense or to refute the charges. The paragraph also discusses the limitations of such evidence, including the irrelevance of character traits not related to the crime and the court's discretion to limit the scope of character evidence. Additionally, it touches on the concept of 'opening the door' to character evidence by the defendant, which allows the prosecution to introduce character evidence in rebuttal. The paragraph provides examples from case law to illustrate these principles, such as the inadmissibility of a police officer's performance evaluations in a drug and gun possession case, and the admissibility of a victim's character trait in a self-defense claim.
📘 Rule 404 B: Exceptions for Non-Character Uses of Prior Acts
This section examines Rule 404 B, which outlines specific circumstances under which evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is admissible not for the purpose of proving character but for other reasons such as motive, opportunity, or identity. The paragraph explains the requirement for the prosecutor to provide notice to the defense when intending to introduce such evidence and the court's role in determining its admissibility. It provides examples of cases where prior acts were deemed relevant for purposes such as proving opportunity or modus operandi, illustrating how the evidence is used to establish elements of the crime rather than to imply guilt by character association.
📝 Methods of Proving Character and Inadmissible Evidence for Public Policy
The final paragraph discusses how character evidence is proved under Rule 405, detailing the three methods: through reputation in the community, personal knowledge of a witness, and specific instances of conduct. It highlights the criteria for admissibility, such as the witness's connection to the community and the relevance of the testimony to the time of the events in question. The paragraph also addresses types of evidence that are barred for public policy reasons, such as subsequent remedial measures, offers to compromise, offers to pay medical expenses, and evidence of insurance. It explains the rationale behind these exclusions, which aim to promote societal benefits like encouraging remedial actions and facilitating dispute resolution without fear of legal repercussions. Additionally, it touches on the admissibility of evidence in sex offense cases, including the rape shield law and exceptions for showing consent or the source of physical evidence.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Rule 404
💡Pertinent Character Traits
💡Admissibility
💡Rebuttal Evidence
💡Rule 404(a)
💡Rule 404(b)
💡Modus Operandi (MO)
💡Rule 405
💡Reputation Evidence
💡Specific Instances
💡Public Policy
💡Rape Shield Law
Highlights
Federal Rule 404 permits a criminal defendant to introduce evidence of their own pertinent character traits.
A pertinent character trait is one that relates to the crime or a defense to the crime.
Evidence of character can be used to rebut a defendant's character evidence once introduced by the defendant.
The government cannot bring up character evidence if the defendant has not opened the door by making character an issue.
Rule 404(a) allows the introduction of evidence of a victim's pertinent character trait to support a defendant's claim of self-defense.
Character evidence can be established through testimony about the reputation of the subject or the opinion of the witness.
Evidence of specific instances of conduct is generally not admissible to show a person's character unless an exception applies under Rule 404(b).
Rule 404(b) provides nine permitted non-character uses for introducing crimes or prior bad acts, such as motive, opportunity, and identity.
The prosecution must provide reasonable notice to the defense if they intend to use past act evidence for one of the allowed purposes under Rule 404(b).
Evidence of prior acts can be used to show motive, as in the case of Harris vs. Barone where the defense used evidence of past disciplinary actions.
Identity can be proven by showing the crime was committed in a manner consistent with the defendant's modus operandi.
Rule 405 outlines three methods of proving character: through reputation, opinion of a witness with personal knowledge, and specific instances of conduct.
Reputation testimony must satisfy criteria such as the witness explaining the foundation for their testimony and its relation to the relevant community.
Witnesses testifying as to their opinions on character must establish that they are sufficiently familiar with the person whose character is being proved.
Specific acts are admissible to prove character only when character is an element of the claim, charge, or defense.
Subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence, blameworthiness, or the need for a warning, to encourage preventative actions.
Offers to compromise are inadmissible under Rule 408 to promote the public policy of negotiating disputes out of court.
Offers to pay medical expenses are not admissible to prove liability for the injury under Rule 409.
Evidence of insurance is inadmissible to prove or disprove wrongful conduct, promoting the public policy of obtaining insurance.
In sex offense cases, evidence of the victim's sexual history is generally inadmissible to prevent victim blaming, known as a rape shield law.
Exceptions to the rape shield law allow the admission of evidence of the victim's sexual history to show source of physical evidence or consent.
Federal Rules 413, 414, and 415 outline the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes in sex offense cases and child molestation cases.
Transcripts
Browse More Related Video
Character Evidence (FRE 404-405, 412-415), Habit & Routine (FRE 406) [LEAP Preview — Evidence: 3/14]
Character Evidence During Trial -- Evidence at Trial
SIMPLIFIED – Character Evidence
003 Rules of Admissibility (Rule 130) | Rules on Evidence | by Dean Riano
Evidence Law: Relevance and Admissibility
Evidence Law: The Rule of Relevance and Admissibility of Character Evidence
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
Thanks for rating: