Flashcards in Character Evidence Deck (13)
How does PA differ from the FRE with respect to the use of opinion to prove character.
Admissible under the FRE
NOT admissible to prove character under PARE
How does PA differ from the FRE with respect to the use of reputation to prove character?
It doesn't. Permitted under both.
In PA, which statement is OK and which is not? Why?
Joan is known as a peaceable person.
I know Joan to be a peaceable person.
First is OK as REPUTATION to show character
Second is NOT OK because its OPINION to show character
Under the FRE, character is not admissible in civil cases when offered as . . .
Circumstantial evidence to infer conduct at the time of the litigated event.
Under PARE, what sort of civil cases may a party use CE as circumstantial evidence to infer conduct at the time of the litigated event?
How does FRE and PA differ with the use of CE as circumstantial evidence to infer conduct at the time of the litigated event in a CIVIL case?
FRE bars its
PA allows it for Assault and/or Battery cases (civil)
In criminal cases, cannot the Prosecutor ask a witness whether he knows that D was arrested 6 times? Explain
No. This is technically opinion which is NOT ok in PA (would be ok in Fed)
In criminal cases, cannot the Prosecutor ask a witness whether he has heard that D was arrested 6 times? Explain
Yes, this is technically reputation which is OK in PA
Can Pros. ask a witness about D's prior bad acts, even though he wasn't convicted?
No. specific act not permitted.
How does PARE differ from the FRE with respect to the use of a victim's character (to show first aggression)?
The accused can introduce evidence of SPECIFIC INSTANCES of Victim's conduct--even if not known to the accused.
Prosecution cannot respond with evidence of the accused's bad character for the same trait (i.e,, D doesn't open the door by attacking the victim's character).
How does FRE and PARE differ with respect to the admissibility of prior sexual conduct against D's in cases involving sexual assault and child molestation?
Specific FRE allows the use of prior sexual conduct against D's in such cases
PA has no rule allowing such evidence. It is simply governed by a relevance analysis.
Under the FRE, prior crimes or prior acts of uncharged misconduct may be admitted when what is true of the misconduct?
Is it balanced under 403?
When it is relevant to prove a material fact other than character or disposition (can prove MIMIC).