Evidence > Character Evidence

Question 1

In a criminal case, when may the prosecution call witnesses to testify about the defendant’s character for a particular trait to establish the defendant acted in conformity with that trait?

Answer 1

Only if the defendant has already put that particular character trait in issue.

Question 2

In a criminal case, what types of testimony may be given to prove the defendant acted in conformity with a particular trait?

Answer 2

This can be in the form of reputation or opinion testimony; testimony concerning the defendant’s specific bad acts is NOT allowed.

Question 3

Must a criminal defendant testify in order for the prosecution to be permitted to rebut good character evidence with unfavorable character evidence to prove the defendant acted in conformity with those traits?

Answer 3

No, if the defendant puts her character in issue, the prosecution can rebut that evidence regardless of whether the defendant testified.

Question 4

Once the defendant has introduced evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged victim, the prosecution may counter with reputation or opinion evidence of:

Answer 4

(i) the victim’s good character for any pertinent trait, or (ii) the defendant’s bad character for the same trait.

Question 5

In a civil case, when is character evidence admissible?

Answer 5

Character evidence is admissible in civil cases only when character is directly at issue in the case.

Question 6

Why is character evidence generally inadmissible against a defendant unless he opens the door?

Answer 6

The rationale for generally excluding it is that even though the evidence is of some relevance, the prosecution should not be permitted to show that the defendant is a bad person, since it may affect the jury’s impartiality.

Question 7

If a defendant chooses to testify, has she chosen to place her character at issue, permitting rebuttal bad character evidence?

Answer 7

No. A defendant who testifies does not put her character in issue merely by testifying in the case; however, she does put her credibility into issue by testifying, and may be impeached.

Question 8

If a defendant chooses to testify, has she chosen to place her credibility at issue, permitting impeachment?

Answer 8

Yes. Although a defendant who testifies does not put her character in issue merely by testifying in the case, she does put her credibility into issue by testifying, and may be impeached.

Question 9

Evidence of prior acts or crimes may be admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident in which types of cases?

Answer 9

Evidence of prior acts or crimes may be admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident whenever these issues are relevant in either civil or criminal cases.

Question 10

When is evidence of prior acts or crimes admissible?

Answer 10

Evidence of prior acts or crimes may be admissible to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Question 11

For purposes of a civil case, when is a party’s character considered to be “directly in issue?”

Answer 11

When proof of a person’s character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense in a civil action, it is said that character is “directly in issue.” Character evidence can be admissible when it is an essential element of EITHER a claim or defense

Question 12

In __________ cases involving sexual assault, evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the alleged victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the victim and of unfair prejudice to any party.

Answer 12

Civil.

Question 13

In criminal cases, when is evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the alleged victim admissible?

Answer 13

Evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the alleged victim may be admissible in criminal cases only in specific instances, such as where evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the victim is offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence, or when specific instances of sexual behavior between the victim and the accused are admissible to prove consent.

Question 14

In a civil case, when character is directly in issue, that character may be proved by evidence in the form of:

Answer 14

Reputation, opinion, or specific acts.

Question 15

Under the Federal Rules, what types of evidence may be used to prove character when character is directly in issue?

Answer 15

Reputation, opinion, or specific acts.

Question 16

In a negligent hiring case, why is character evidence admissible?

Answer 16

When a person’s character itself is at issue in the case, character evidence is not only admissible, but indeed is the best method of proving the issue. Character is said to be at issue in a civil case when proof of a person’s character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense. When a defendant in a negligent hiring case is alleged to have hired an unstable employee, the character of the employee is indeed at issue in the case. Defamation cases are another example of where character is at issue (e.g., defendant may use character evidence as part of her affirmative defense that she spoke the truth when she called plaintiff a thief). However, these types of situations are rare.

Question 17

In a typical breach of contract, battery, or product liability case, why is character evidence generally inadmissible?

Answer 17

Character is only at issue in a civil case when proof of a person’s character, as a matter of substantive law, is an essential element of a claim or defense. In a typical breach of contract, battery, or product liability case, the character of the parties is not directly at issue. Such circumstantial use of prior behavior patterns for the purpose of drawing the inference that, at the time and place in question, the actor probably acted in accord with her prior behavior pattern is not permitted in civil cases.

Question 18

When is prior misconduct by a defendant admissible?

Answer 18

Prior misconduct by a defendant may be admissible when it is independently relevant (i.e., introduced to prove a relevant fact other than the accused’s general bad character or criminal disposition).

Question 19

Under Federal Rule 404(b), independently relevant uncharged misconduct by the defendant will be admissible in civil and criminal cases, without a preliminary ruling, as long as:

Answer 19

i) There is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act (i.e., the standard of Federal Rule 104); and
(ii) Its probative value on the issue of motive, intent, identity, or other independently relevant proposition is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (i.e., the test of Federal Rule 403).