Character Evidence and Impeachment
This summarizes key themes and important facts from the provided excerpt of "Lecture Three: Character Evidence and Impeachment."
I. Character Evidence: General Rule and Exceptions (FRE 404)
General Rule: Character evidence is inadmissible to prove conduct. This rule aims to prevent unfair prejudice and ensure trials focus on specific actions, not broad character assessments.
"The law bars this type of evidence to prevent unfair prejudice. If juries were allowed to rely on character evidence, there’s a significant risk that they would punish a party for being a 'bad person' rather than for the specific act alleged."
Exceptions (Criminal Cases):
Defendant's Character: Defendants can introduce evidence of their relevant good character traits. However, this allows the prosecution to rebut with evidence of bad character.
Victim's Character: Defendants can introduce evidence of the victim's relevant character, particularly in self-defense cases. The prosecution can then rebut.
Homicide Cases: If a defendant claims the victim was the aggressor, the prosecution can introduce evidence of the victim's peacefulness.
Exceptions (Civil Cases): Character evidence is rarely admissible but exceptions exist in cases like defamation, child custody, or negligent hiring where character is directly relevant.
II. Methods of Proving Character (FRE 405)
Reputation Evidence: Testimony about a person's general reputation in the community.
"A witness might testify, 'In our neighborhood, John is known as an honest and trustworthy individual.'"
Opinion Evidence: Testimony about a witness's personal opinion of an individual's character.
"A close friend might testify, 'I’ve known Sarah for years, and in my opinion, she’s a very honest person.'"
Specific Instances of Conduct: Admissible only when character is an essential element of the case (e.g., negligent hiring).
III. Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts (FRE 404(b))
General Rule: Evidence of other acts is inadmissible to prove character or conformity with that character.
Permissible Purposes: Such evidence may be admissible to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake/accident.
Balancing Test: Under FRE 403, judges must weigh the probative value of "other acts" evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice.
IV. Impeachment of Witnesses
Purpose: To challenge a witness's credibility by showing bias, incapacity, inconsistency, or lack of truthfulness.
Methods:Bias or Prejudice: Demonstrating a witness's personal stake in the trial outcome.
Incapacity: Showing the witness's inability to perceive or recall events accurately.
Prior Inconsistent Statements: Exposing contradictions between trial testimony and prior statements.
Contradiction: Presenting evidence that directly contradicts the witness's testimony.
V. Impeachment by Character Evidence (FRE 608 & 609)
FRE 608 (Truthfulness): A witness's character for truthfulness can be attacked or supported by reputation or opinion evidence. Specific instances of conduct relating to truthfulness can be explored on cross-examination.
FRE 609 (Criminal Conviction): Prior convictions involving dishonesty or false statements, or felonies, can be used for impeachment. The court must balance probative value against prejudicial effect.
VI. Rehabilitation of Witnesses
Purpose: To restore a witness's credibility after impeachment.
Methods:Prior Consistent Statements: Rebutting claims of fabrication.
Character for Truthfulness: Using reputation or opinion evidence to support the witness's honesty.
The lecture concludes with hypothetical scenarios illustrating the application of these rules in practice. Understanding these concepts is crucial for both legal exams and effective courtroom practice.
