Character Evidence During Trial -- Evidence at Trial

Evidence at Trial

19 Feb 202018:35

EducationalLearning

32 Likes 10 Comments

TLDRIn this insightful video, Dave Sudden dives into the complexities of character evidence in trials. He emphasizes the importance of mastering evidence rules for effective application during trials. The video explains the limitations on character evidence due to potential prejudicial effects and the necessity of trials to conclude in a timely manner. It outlines the exceptions to the general exclusion rule, such as when character is at issue in the case, offered for another purpose like motive or intent, or related to witness credibility. Sudden also highlights the distinction between character and habit evidence, using case examples to illustrate the application of these rules in real-world scenarios.

Takeaways

😀 The video discusses the importance of mastering the rules of evidence, especially in the context of character evidence during trials.
🔍 The speaker emphasizes the need to proactively identify evidence issues rather than waiting for them to arise, to avoid missing important objections.
📚 Character evidence is generally excluded or limited by law due to policy reasons, primarily to prevent trials from becoming overly extended or biased.
🚫 The general rule of exclusion for character evidence is that it is inadmissible to prove how a person acted or would act in a specific instance based on their character.
🔄 However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when character is directly at issue in the case, or when the evidence is being used for another purpose, like showing motive or intent.
🤔 The distinction between character evidence and habit evidence is crucial, with habit evidence being admissible under certain conditions, such as demonstrating a pattern of behavior.
👩‍⚖️ Judges often make decisions on evidence issues based on an abuse of discretion standard, which can lead to different interpretations of what constitutes character or habit evidence.
📉 In cases where character is at issue, the evidence allowed to prove character is broad, including opinions, reputation, and specific instances of conduct.
🔎 When character evidence is offered for another purpose, only specific instances of conduct are admissible, not opinions or reputation.
👀 The credibility of a witness is always relevant, and character evidence can be introduced to affect the jury's perception of a witness's honesty and veracity, but it is limited to reputation and opinion evidence.
📝 The video concludes by encouraging viewers to join live events or online classes for a deeper understanding of these rules and their application in trials.

Q & A

What is the primary purpose of discussing character evidence in a trial setting?
-The primary purpose is to master the rules of evidence, especially character evidence, in a way that can be effectively applied during the heat and speed of trial, ensuring that important issues are not missed.
Why is character evidence sometimes limited in trials?
-Character evidence is limited because it can be too relevant and potentially sway the jury's decision based on the defendant's character rather than the strength of the evidence in the case at hand. Additionally, it prevents trials from becoming endless as both sides could introduce character witnesses leading to a series of mini trials.
What is the difference between character evidence and habit evidence?
-Character evidence generally refers to a person's general traits or tendencies, which is usually inadmissible to prove how they acted in a specific instance. Habit evidence, on the other hand, refers to a person's regular patterns of behavior that are admissible to show how they likely acted in a given situation.
How does the distinction between character and habit evidence impact the admissibility of evidence in court?
-The distinction is crucial because while character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in a specific instance, habit evidence is admissible. This means that evidence of a person's regular behavior patterns can be presented to show how they likely acted in a particular situation.
What are the three main occasions where character evidence may be allowed in court?
-Character evidence may be allowed when the character is at issue in the case, when the character trait is being offered for some other purpose such as motive or intent, and when it pertains to the credibility of a witness.
Can you provide an example where character evidence is directly at issue in a case?
-An example is in negligent hiring cases where the plaintiff argues that the employer was negligent for hiring an individual known to have a bad character, thus making the employee's character directly relevant to the case.
What is the general rule of exclusion for character evidence as stated in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)?
-The general rule of exclusion for character evidence, as stated in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a), is that such evidence is inadmissible to prove that a person acted in conformity with that character or trait on a particular occasion.
How does the concept of 'too much relevance' apply to the limitation of character evidence?
-The concept of 'too much relevance' suggests that character evidence can be so influential that it may overshadow the actual issues of the case, leading the jury to make decisions based on their perception of a person's character rather than the facts of the case.
What is the role of a motion in limine in relation to character evidence?
-A motion in limine is used prior to or during a trial to determine the admissibility of certain types of evidence, including character evidence. It helps to prevent the introduction of inadmissible evidence and can set the parameters for what character evidence may be allowed.
What are the limitations on the character traits that can be used to impact the credibility of a witness?
-The limitations are such that only the trait of honesty and veracity can be used to impact a witness's credibility. The evidence must be limited to the witness's reputation or opinion on this trait, and any introduction of bad character evidence regarding honesty must be responded to with good character evidence on the same trait.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Mastering Character Evidence in Trial

The script begins with Dave Sudden introducing the topic of character evidence in the context of trial proceedings. He emphasizes the importance of not only understanding the rules of evidence but also being able to apply them effectively during trials. The discussion highlights the policy reasons behind the limitation of character evidence, such as preventing trials from becoming too drawn out or allowing character to overshadow the actual issues at hand. The general rule of exclusion for character evidence is presented, along with the exceptions that allow for its admission, which can complicate its application more than hearsay rules. The need to determine whether character evidence is at issue and to distinguish it from habit evidence is stressed, with references to Federal Rules of Evidence and California Evidence Code.

05:00

🔍 Distinguishing Character from Habit Evidence

This paragraph delves into the distinction between character and habit evidence, which is crucial for admissibility. It discusses how this distinction is not always clear-cut and can vary depending on judicial interpretation. The California case of Bauer v. Ryan is cited as an example where the court ruled that evidence of a dentist's alleged abusive behavior towards multiple patients was character evidence, not habit, and thus inadmissible. Conversely, the case of Bender v. City of Los Angeles is mentioned where evidence of a police officer's rough treatment of arrestees was deemed habit, making it admissible. The paragraph also outlines the three main occasions where character evidence may be allowed: when character is at issue in the case, when offered for another purpose, and in relation to the credibility of a witness.

10:02

🚸 Character Evidence: When and How It's Admissible

The script continues by discussing the specific situations in which character evidence may be admissible. It explains that when a person's character is directly at issue in a case, such as in negligent hiring or wrongful termination cases, a wide range of evidence is allowed to prove that character. This includes opinion and reputation evidence, as well as specific instances of conduct. The paragraph also addresses the use of character evidence for other purposes, such as to show motive, intent, or absence of mistake, and notes that specific instances of conduct are the only admissible form of evidence in these cases. The importance of understanding the rules and exceptions regarding character evidence is reiterated, with a focus on avoiding mini-trials within the main trial.

15:04

🗣️ Character Evidence and Witness Credibility

The final paragraph focuses on the use of character evidence in relation to the credibility of witnesses. It clarifies that while the credibility of a witness is always relevant, the character traits that can be introduced to affect credibility are limited to honesty and veracity. The script references California Evidence Code sections 780 and 786, as well as Federal Rule of Evidence 608, which specify the allowable evidence for credibility as reputation or opinion regarding honesty. It also discusses the limited scope of cross-examination when such character evidence is introduced, using the case of People v. Heard as an example to illustrate the restrictions. The paragraph concludes by inviting viewers to engage with the 'Evidence at Trial' community for further exploration of these topics.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Character Evidence

Character evidence refers to the use of a person's character or reputation as evidence in a trial. In the video, it is discussed as a type of evidence that is generally excluded or limited due to policy reasons. The script mentions that character evidence can be too relevant and may affect the jury's decision based on the defendant's character rather than the actual evidence of the case. For example, in a breach of contract case, introducing evidence of the defendant's poor character from high school could unfairly influence the jury.

💡Hearsay

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The video script mentions hearsay in the context of potential objections during a trial. It suggests that while hearsay is generally inadmissible, there are numerous exceptions, and focusing only on hearsay might lead to missing other important issues like relevance or foundation.

💡Relevance

Relevance in the context of evidence law refers to the material's ability to make a fact more or less probable concerning the matter under dispute. The script emphasizes that while character evidence might be relevant, its admissibility is limited to prevent it from overshadowing the actual issues of the case. For instance, evidence of a defendant's past dishonesty might be relevant but is not admissible to prove they are dishonest in the current case.

💡Foundation

Foundation in legal terms refers to the need to establish a basis for the admissibility of evidence. The script mentions that focusing on obvious issues like hearsay might cause attorneys to overlook the foundational requirements for evidence. Establishing a proper foundation ensures that the evidence is reliable and relevant to the case.

💡Federal Rules of Evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence are a set of rules governing the introduction of evidence in federal courts in the United States. The script specifically references Rule 404(a), which generally excludes character evidence to prove a person's conduct on a specific occasion, and Rule 406, which allows for habit evidence. These rules are crucial in understanding the limits on character evidence in federal trials.

💡California Evidence Code

The California Evidence Code is a set of laws governing the admissibility of evidence in California courts. The script mentions sections 1101(a) and 1105, which deal with the general exclusion of character evidence and the admissibility of habit evidence, respectively. These sections are important for understanding the state-specific rules on character evidence.

💡Habit Evidence

Habit evidence is admissible to prove that a person's regular pattern of behavior is likely to have been the same on a particular occasion. The script distinguishes habit evidence from character evidence, noting that while character evidence is generally excluded, habit evidence is allowed under certain circumstances, such as proving a pattern of behavior that is relevant to the case.

💡Negligent Hiring

Negligent hiring refers to a legal claim where an employer is held liable for hiring an employee who they knew or should have known was likely to engage in harmful conduct. The script uses this as an example where character evidence might be directly at issue, as the employer's knowledge of the employee's character is relevant to the case.

💡Credibility

Credibility in a legal context refers to the believability of a witness or the trustworthiness of their testimony. The script discusses how character evidence can be used to attack or support the credibility of a witness, specifically focusing on the trait of honesty and veracity. This is one of the few instances where character evidence is allowed.

💡Motion in Limine

A motion in limine is a legal motion filed before a trial to exclude certain evidence from being presented at trial. The script suggests that disputes over the admissibility of character evidence for other purposes are often resolved through such motions, highlighting the strategic importance of this procedural tool in managing evidence presentation.

💡People v. Heard

People v. Heard is a California case mentioned in the script that discusses the limitations on cross-examination when character evidence is allowed. The case is used as an example to illustrate how courts restrict the scope of questioning to prevent turning a trial into a series of mini-trials focused on the character of the individuals involved.

Highlights

The importance of mastering the rules of evidence to apply them effectively during trials.

Character evidence is relevant but limited by policy reasons to prevent excessive relevance and prolonging trials.

The general rule of exclusion for character evidence is similar to hearsay, with exceptions that impact jury decisions.

The distinction between character evidence and habit evidence is crucial, with habit evidence being admissible under certain rules.

The complexity of character evidence lies in determining which exceptions apply to the general rule of exclusion.

Character evidence can be at issue when a person's character is directly relevant to the case, such as in negligent hiring cases.

When character is at issue, evidence can include opinions, reputation, and specific instances of conduct.

The admissibility of character evidence depends on whether it is being used to prove a habit or custom, which can be subjective.

Examples of cases where character evidence was deemed inadmissible due to insufficient evidence of a habit, such as in Bauer vs. Ryan.

Contrasting cases like Bender vs. City of Los Angeles, where character evidence was allowed as it suggested a pattern of behavior.

The role of character evidence in cases where the character trait is offered for a different purpose, such as motive or intent.

The limitation of character evidence to specific instances of conduct when offered for a different purpose, excluding opinions and reputation.

The impact of character evidence on the credibility of a witness, with honesty and veracity being the only allowable traits.

The restrictions on cross-examination when character evidence is introduced to affect a witness's credibility.

The importance of understanding the limitations and applications of character evidence to prevent mini-trials within the main trial.

The encouragement to attend live events or online classes for a deeper understanding of the application of these rules in trials.

Transcripts

Browse More Related Video

Character Evidence (FRE 404-405, 412-415), Habit & Routine (FRE 406) [LEAP Preview — Evidence: 3/14]

SIMPLIFIED – Character Evidence

Permitted Uses of Character Evidence: Module 3 of 6

003 Rules of Admissibility (Rule 130) | Rules on Evidence | by Dean Riano

Impeachment of a Witness (FRE 607-609, 611, 613) [LEAP Preview — Evidence: 6/14]

Evidence Law: The Rule of Relevance and Admissibility of Character Evidence