Character Evidence Flashcards
Tran Nguyen testified for the government in the criminal case. The defendants offer a witness who will say that his opinion of Nguyen’s character for truthfulness is very low. The government objects that this witness is not competent to give that testimony. How should the judge rule?
Witness must show a sufficient relationship with other person, there is not one here, therefore he is NOT competent
The defendants next offer a citizen of Viet Nam, who will testify that he was from the same village as Nguyen, it was a small village and that Nguyen was well known in the village as a liar. The government objects that this witness is not competent to give that testimony. How should the judge rule?
Look to the definition of the community (village); both are part of the community, look to the relationship of both with the community; look to the two’s overlap with the community, were they there at the same time? Also want the jury to credit the witness so establish as much about the relationship as possible
In the direct case, the government wishes to offer testimony from someone who grew up with defendant Barker that Barker was well known within their hometown community for having a very violent nature. Barker objects that this is improper character testimony. The government responds that this was a crime of violence, so showing that the defendant had a violent nature is relevant. How should the judge rule?
Possession of unregistered explosive device tax violation: probablt
Extortion act of violence
Government/Plaintiffs have no ability to introduce character in direct case
Only defendants can start the character evidence chain
The judge expresses doubt about the competence of the witness in Problem 2 and asks the defendants to more fully develop the witness’ competence in a voir dire examination out of the jury’s presence. The defendants then ask the witness if he is aware of the basis of this belief in the village. The witness responds that he does know the basis. He goes on to explain that Nguyen made it a practice to borrow small amounts of money from various villagers, claiming that he needed the funds to pay for a medical procedure. Only later did they learn he was using the money to come to the United States and had no intention of repaying the loans. The government objects that this is not proper testimony. How should the judge rule?
Does this benefit the defendants in anyway? Information will help judge determine if witness is competent but jury does not get to hear the specific acts Violates 405(a)?
Assume that the judge rules that the witness in Problem 2 is not competent to give the reputation of Nguyen. The defendants then ask the witness if he has a personal opinion about Nguyen’s honesty. The witness states that he does. The witness goes on to explain that he and Nguyen agreed to work together to open a bicycle shop in the village. Nguyen was a skilled mechanic, so he was to repair the bicycles while the witness was to front the money to open the store. The witness will state that Nguyen stole the money and used it to buy his way to the United States. The government objects that the witness is not competent as he has a bias to Nguyen. How should the judge rule?
Character witnesses are inherently biased so that okay
Problem: discussed the specific acts underlying his opinion
Assume the judge overrules the objection in Problem 4, the government then objects that this is not proper testimony. How should the judge rule?
No Idea
The defendants have learned the Nguyen and two friends hijacked a fishing boat on the South China Sea and forced the captain and his son to take them to Hong Kong. Along the way food ran out and Nguyen and his friends killed and ate the captain. They were arrested as they entered Hong Kong harbor, but as it was just the word of the captain’s son against the word of Nguyen and his two friends the Hong Kong authorities did not press charges and Nguyen was allowed into the United States. The defendants wish to call the captain’s son to testify about Nguyen’s conduct. The government objects this is not proper character testimony. How should the judge rule?
Not allow; underlying reason for opinion is not admissible
Improper testimony no basis for testimony (doesn’t speak to honesty)
This would be specific act testimony
Kelly Black’s testimony of what she saw in defendant Ginaris’ Motel 6 room is damaging to the defendants’ case. On direct, she has denied any racial animosity. To attempt to make her less credible, the defendants wish to present the following evidence in their own case:
a. Witnesses will testify that Black had a reputation in the neighborhood in which she lived as a racist.
b. Witnesses will testify that Black was seen at a number of anti-civil rights protests.
c. The opinion of co-workers at Motel 6 that Black harbors deep racial animosity towards African-Americans.
d. The statement by a co-worker that Black had lied to the co-worker about Black’s ability to repay a personal loan.
e. Witnesses will testify that Black’s reputation for truthfulness was poor.
How should the judge rule on each of these offers?
a. Witnesses will testify that Black had a reputation in the neighborhood in which she lived as a racist.
608 is a limiting rule may only go to untruthfulness to get in as character
Can get evidence in as going to her bias
b. Witnesses will testify that Black was seen at a number of anti-civil rights protests.
Not allow as character because not go to untruthfulness
c. The opinion of co-workers at Motel 6 that Black harbors deep racial animosity towards African-Americans.
Not allow as character because not go to untruthfulness
d. The statement by a co-worker that Black had lied to the co-worker about Black’s ability to repay a personal loan.
Not allow as character because not go to untruthfulness
e. Witnesses will testify that Black’s reputation for truthfulness was poor.
Assuming enough of a basis, this will get in because go to untruthfulness
In the civil case, AB wishes to introduce evidence of the good corporate character of the business by showing AB’s good works in St. Louis and by calling beneficiaries of AB’s good acts to testify about their opinion of AB’s character. Plaintiffs object that this is not proper character evidence. How should the judge rule?
Specific acts is a problem; cannot offer evidence of themselves; now that a corporation is a person maybe it can?
Defendant Barker offers testimony of witnesses who know him personally who will state their personal opinion that Barker is honest and not of a violent nature. He also offers testimony from witnesses in the neighborhood in which he lives that he has a good reputation for honesty. The government objects that the rules on character evidence only allow the character of a witness or victim to be put before the jury. How should the judge rule?
Will allow this
Assume that the judge overrules the government’s objection. In its rebuttal case, the government offers the same evidence set forth in Problem 3. The defendant objects that the court has already found this testimony inadmissible in the government’s direct case, so it should not be now admitted. How should the court rule?
Concept of opening the door by placing his character in question; once Barker chooses to open the door, can no longer object even if it has been previously ruled inadmissible
In the civil action involving the driving of John Clark, the AB driver who crashed into a residence, the owner of the residence wishes to prove that Clark had a very bad driving history while driving for former employers with multiple accidents some of which had resulted in negligence actions being successfully brought against Clark and his former employers. AB and Clark object that this is improper specific act character evidence which is banned. How should the court rule?
It is an element; something outside of character
In anticipation of the cross examination of Kelly Black, the government offers a witness who will testify to her good reputation for truthfulness with the employees of the Motel 6 at which she works. Defendants object that this is improper character testimony. How should the judge rule?
Anticipatory use is NOT going to be allowed
Don’t allow bolstering, cannot do that
Barbara Notstadd is intensely cross-examined about her testimony concerning the conversation between the three defendants. She finally shouts back at defense counsel that she would never lie because that would be against the rules of her religion. Notstadd is a Wiccan. The defendants wish to question Notstadd and present other witnesses about her Wiccan beliefs and whether a Wiccan is allowed to lie. If the jury hears that, they are likely to discount what she has said. The government objects that under Rule 610, religion can never be the source of a character attack. How should the judge rule?
She opened the door; used belief as a shield; now evidence that can lie can be introduced
