Evidence AMP - Character Evidence

Question 1

__________ is a type of civil claim where character evidence may be admissible because character is often “directly in issue.”

A Breach of contract

B Battery

C Negligent hiring

Answer 1

C

When a person’s character itself is one of the issues in the case, character evidence is not only admissible, but indeed is the best method of proving the issue. For example, when a defendant in a negligent hiring case is alleged to have hired an unreliable employee, the character of the employee is indeed at issue in the case. In a typical breach of contract or battery case, the character of the parties is not directly at issue. 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 ID: E0090A Additional Learning

Question 2

If the defendant in a murder case pleads self-defense and introduces evidence that the victim was a violent person, the prosecution may:

A Introduce testimony that, in the witness’s opinion, the defendant is a cruel person

B Not introduce evidence about the defendant’s character

C Introduce testimony that the defendant has a reputation for violence

D Introduce evidence that the defendant once started a bar fight

Answer 2

C

The defendant may introduce reputation or opinion evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged crime victim when it is relevant to show the defendant’s innocence. However, once the defendant has introduced evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged victim, the prosecution may counter with reputation or opinion evidence (but not evidence of specific acts, e.g., starting a bar fight) of the defendant’s bad character for the same trait. The prosecution cannot rebut with evidence of the defendant’s bad character for a different trait (e.g., cruelty is not the same as violence). QUESTION ID: E0101B Additional Learning

Question 3

A character witness testifies as to the defendant’s good character. The prosecution then cross-examines the character witness regarding the defendant’s specific instances of misconduct.
If the witness denies knowledge of these bad acts by the defendant, the prosecution:

A May call a rebuttal witness to prove the defendant’s prior bad acts through extrinsic evidence

B May prove the defendant’s prior bad acts through extrinsic evidence, but first must establish that the witness is actually biased in favor of the defendant

C Is limited to cross-examining the witness about the defendant’s prior bad acts

Answer 3

C
The prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about. Under the Federal Rules, this can be done by asking the witness if he has “heard of” or “knows of” the specific acts of misconduct by the defendant. However, if the witness denies knowledge of these specific instances of conduct, the prosecutor may not prove them by extrinsic evidence. The fact that the witness is actually biased in favor of the defendant is irrelevant; the prosecutor is limited to inquiry on cross-examination. This is an absolute rule. QUESTION ID: E0095B Additional Learning

Question 4

Which of the following is a permissible question on cross-examination of a character witness who has testified as to the defendant’s good character for peacefulness?

A “Weren’t you convicted of misdemeanor public drunkenness two years ago?”

B “Have you heard that the defendant punched his boss?”

C “Weren’t you arrested for assaulting a police officer last month?”

D “Do you know that the defendant lied on his job application?”

Answer 4

B

The prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about. Under Federal Rule 405(a), cross-examination inquiry is allowable as to whether the opinion witness knows of, as well as whether he has heard of, specific instances of the party’s misconduct. Thus, “Have you heard that the defendant punched his boss?” would be a permissible question because it tests the character witness’s knowledge of whether the defendant is peaceful. “Did you know that the defendant lied on his job application?” would not be a permissible question because this character witness has testified to defendant’s character for peacefulness, not honesty. Like any other witness, a character witness’s credibility may be impeached. Under the Federal Rules, subject to discretionary control of the trial judge, a witness may be interrogated upon cross-examination with respect to an act of misconduct only if the act is probative of truthfulness (i.e., is an act of deceit or lying). Therefore, “Weren’t you arrested for assaulting a police officer last month?” is an impermissible question. Assaulting a police officer is not an act that is probative of truthfulness; thus, the character witness cannot be impeached with this prior bad act. Prior convictions are admissible to impeach a witness under certain circumstances. However, convictions of misdemeanors that do not involve dishonesty or a false statement are not admissible to impeach a witness. Thus, “Weren’t you convicted of misdemeanor public drunkenness two years ago?” is not a permissible question. QUESTION ID: E0102 Additional Learning

Question 5

A character witness testifies regarding the defendant’s good character for peacefulness. The prosecution may rebut this evidence by:

A Showing the witness an arrest report indicating that the defendant beat his girlfriend three weeks prior to this incident

B Calling the defendant’s girlfriend as a rebuttal witness to testify that he beat her three weeks prior to this incident

C Asking the witness, “Did you know that the defendant beat his girlfriend three weeks prior to this incident?”

D Asking the witness, “Have you heard that the defendant embezzled money from his previous employer?”

Answer 5

C

The prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about. Under Federal Rule 405(a), cross-examination inquiry is allowable as to whether the character witness knows of, as well as whether he has heard of, specific instances of misconduct by the defendant. Therefore, it is proper for the prosecution to ask the witness about the defendant’s prior violent act. However, it would not be proper to ask about the defendant’s prior dishonest act (embezzling money) because the witness testified about the defendant’s character for violence, not his character for truthfulness.

If the witness denies knowledge of specific instances of misconduct by the defendant, the prosecutor may not prove them by extrinsic evidence (e.g., a rebuttal witness or an arrest report); he is limited to inquiry on cross-examination. QUESTION ID: E0095C Additional Learning

Question 6

In a criminal rape case, under what circumstances may the defense introduce evidence of the alleged victim’s sexual behavior with a person other than the accused?

A Whenever 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.

B To prove consent.

C To prove the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence.

D Whenever the behavior is relevant to show the defendant’s innocence.

Answer 6

C

Generally, evidence of the alleged victim’s sexual behavior is inadmissible. However, there are exceptions. In a criminal case, where offered to prove the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence, evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the victim with a person other than the accused is admissible. Where offered to prove consent, specific instances of sexual behavior between the victim and the accused are admissible. However, the victim’s sexual behavior with someone other than the accused would not be admissible for this purpose. In civil cases, evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the 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. However, this balancing test does not apply to criminal cases. Where relevant to show the defendant’s innocence, the defendant in a criminal case generally may introduce reputation or opinion evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged crime victim. However, this rule does not extend to showing the bad character of rape victims. QUESTION ID: E0087 Additional Learning

Question 7

A criminal defendant wants to show that she is a peaceful person and is therefore less likely to have committed the violent crime in question.
Which of the following is impermissible testimony by the defendant’s character witness under the Federal Rules?

A “The defendant marched in a rally against street violence.”

B “It is my opinion that the defendant is a peaceful person.”

C “I have never heard that the defendant is a violent person.”

D “I have heard that the defendant is a peaceful person.”

Answer 7

A

A defendant may introduce evidence of her good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime. However, the character witness may not testify to specific acts of conduct (e.g., that the defendant marched in a rally against violence). The character witness may testify as to the defendant’s good reputation (or that he has heard nothing bad) for the trait involved in the case. Under Federal Rule 405, the witness may also give his personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant. QUESTION ID: E0098 Additional Learning

Question 8

If a criminal defendant takes the stand and testifies, her __________ is automatically in issue.

A Character

B Propensity to commit crime

C Credibility

Answer 8

C

If a criminal defendant takes the stand, she puts her credibility in issue and is subject to impeachment. However, the defendant does not put her character in issue merely by testifying, and therefore the prosecution may not introduce evidence of her bad character or criminal propensity to show she acted in conformity with her character and committed the crime charged. QUESTION ID: E0100A Additional Learning

Question 9

If a defendant in a criminal case puts her character in issue, which of the following is an impermissible method of rebutting defendant’s character evidence?

A The prosecution asks a witness if he “knows of” a certain bad act committed by the defendant.

B The prosecution asks a witness if he “has heard of” a certain bad act committed by the defendant.

C The prosecution calls other witnesses to testify to the defendant’s bad reputation for the particular trait involved.

D The prosecution asks the witness about a certain bad act committed by the defendant, and after the witness denies knowledge of it, the prosecution proves the bad act by extrinsic evidence.

Answer 9

D

If a witness denies knowledge of the defendant’s specific instances of misconduct, the prosecution may not prove the bad acts by extrinsic evidence. The prosecution may ask whether the defendant’s character witness knows of certain instances of a defendant’s misconduct. The prosecution may ask whether the defendant’s character witness has heard of certain instances of a defendant’s misconduct. The prosecution may rebut the defendant’s character evidence by calling other witnesses to testify to the defendant’s bad reputation for the trait involved. QUESTION ID: E0086 Additional Learning

Question 10

Evidence of a criminal accused’s other crimes or misconduct is:

A Admissible only if relevant to prove motive

B Admissible if relevant to an issue other than the accused’s criminal disposition

C Never admissible

Answer 10

B

Evidence of an accused’s other crimes or misconduct is admissible if relevant to an issue other than the accused’s criminal disposition. Evidence of an accused’s other crimes or misconduct can be admissible to prove motive, but that is not the only issue for which the evidence may be relevant; others include, e.g., opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. QUESTION ID: E0088A Additional Learning

Question 11

In any __________ proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual disposition of the alleged victim is generally __________.

A Criminal or civil; inadmissible

B Criminal or civil; admissible

C Criminal; admissible

Answer 11

A

In any criminal or civil proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual disposition of the alleged victim is generally inadmissible. There are some exceptions to this rule. In a criminal case, evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence may be admissible. Also, specific instances of sexual behavior between the victim and the accused may be admissible by the prosecution, or by the defense to prove consent. Evidence of a victim’s sexual behavior may also be admissible when its exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. In civil cases, evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the alleged victim may be 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. Evidence of an alleged victim’s reputation may be admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the victim. QUESTION ID: E0087B Additional Learning

Question 12

A character witness testifies as to the defendant’s good character. The prosecution then cross-examines the character witness regarding the defendant’s specific instances of misconduct.
If the witness denies knowledge of the defendant’s acts, the prosecution may __________ seek to prove those acts through extrinsic evidence.

A Sometimes

B Always

C Not

Answer 12

C

The prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about. Under the Federal Rules, this can be done by asking the witness if he has “heard of” or “knows of” the specific acts of misconduct by the defendant. However, if the witness denies knowledge of these specific instances of conduct, the prosecutor may not prove them by extrinsic evidence; he is limited to inquiry on cross-examination. This is an absolute rule. QUESTION ID: E0095A Additional Learning

Question 13

In a negligence case where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant driver ran a stop sign and hit her, testimony that the defendant invariably failed to stop at the particular stop sign in question is considered:

A Character evidence

B Irrelevant evidence

C Habit evidence

Answer 13

C

Habit describes one’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances (e.g., “he invariably fails to stop at that stop sign”). Since habits are more specific and particularized, evidence of habit is relevant and can be introduced in circumstances when it is not permissible to introduce evidence of character. In contrast, character describes one’s disposition in respect to general traits (e.g., “he’s a careless driver”). QUESTION ID: E0099A Additional Learning

Question 14

Which of the following is not a permissible use for prior bad act evidence?

A Propensity

B Plan

C Identity

D Knowledge

Answer 14

A

Prior acts or crimes are not admissible to show criminal propensity. However, Federal Rule 404(b) goes on to say that such prior acts or crimes may be admissible for other purposes (e.g., to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident). QUESTION ID: E0094C Additional Learning

Question 15

If a criminal defendant testifies on his own behalf, the prosecution is then allowed to introduce __________.

A substantive character evidence (i.e., offered for a purpose other than impeachment) of the defendant’s bad character

B neither impeachment evidence nor substantive character evidence

C substantive evidence (i.e., offered for a purpose other than impeachment) of the victim’s good character

D evidence that impeaches the defendant’s credibility

Answer 15

D

If a criminal defendant takes the stand, he puts his credibility in issue and is subject to impeachment. However, the defendant does not put his character at issue merely by testifying, and therefore the prosecution may not introduce substantive evidence of his bad character or substantive evidence of the victim’s good character. This only becomes permissible once the defendant has introduced evidence of his own good character or of the victim’s bad character. QUESTION ID: E0100 Additional Learning

Question 16

In a criminal rape case, the defense may introduce evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim’s sexual behavior with a person other than the accused to:

A Prove the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence

B Prove consent

C Prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the accused if its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to the victim

Answer 16

A

In a criminal case, evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence may be admissible. Where offered to prove consent, specific instances of sexual behavior between the victim and the accused may be admissible. However, the victim’s sexual behavior with someone other than the accused would not be admissible for this purpose. In civil cases, evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the 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. However, this balancing test does not apply in criminal cases. QUESTION ID: E0087A Additional Learning

Question 17

Prior misconduct evidence is inadmissible if the danger of unfair prejudice __________ the probative value.

A Is substantially outweighed by

B Substantially outweighs

C Slightly outweighs

D Is equal to

Answer 17

B

Under Federal Rule 404(b), prior misconduct evidence is inadmissible if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value. The other statements of the standard are incorrect. Additionally, independently relevant uncharged misconduct by the defendant will only be admissible, without a preliminary ruling, if there is sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act (i.e., the standard of Federal Rule 104). QUESTION ID: E0096C Additional Learning

Question 18

When a defendant has introduced evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged victim, the prosecution may counter with:

A Evidence of the defendant’s bad character for any trait

B Evidence of the victim’s good character for the same trait

C Evidence of the victim’s good character for any trait

Answer 18

B

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 the victim’s good character for the same trait. The prosecution may also counter with evidence of the defendant’s bad character for the same trait. It is not permissible for the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding any trait; it must be on a trait that counters the defendant’s evidence. QUESTION ID: E0092A Additional Learning

Question 19

A defendant is charged with armed robbery. For which purpose is extrinsic evidence that he previously stole a gun inadmissible?

A To show that the defendant is the armed robber in question, where the same gun is linked to both instances.

B To show that the defendant is violent and therefore criminally disposed.
Incorrect

C To show that the defendant planned to commit the robbery.

D To show that the defendant stole the gun in preparation for the armed robbery.

Answer 19

B

Extrinsic evidence of the defendant’s other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if such evidence is offered solely to show that the defendant is violent and therefore has a criminal disposition. However, evidence of other crimes or misconduct is admissible if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the defendant’s character or disposition to commit the crime charged (e.g., to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident) whenever these issues are relevant. For example, evidence that the defendant previously stole a gun could be brought in to show that the defendant planned to commit the robbery, that the defendant had stolen the same gun that was used in the robbery, and that the defendant had stolen the gun in preparation for the armed robbery. QUESTION ID: E0094 Additional Learning

Question 20

A criminal defendant may introduce evidence of her own good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime.
Under the Federal Rules, which of the following is an impermissible manner of showing the defendant’s good character?

A Calling a witness to testify as to the defendant’s good reputation for the trait involved in the case.

B Calling a witness to testify to the defendant’s specific acts of conduct to prove the trait in issue.

C Calling a witness to testify that he has heard nothing bad regarding the defendant’s reputation for the trait involved in the case.

D Calling a witness to give his personal opinion concerning the trait in issue of the defendant.

Answer 20

B

A defendant may call a qualified witness to testify as to the defendant’s good reputation (or that he has heard nothing bad) for the trait involved in the case. Under Federal Rule 405, the witness may also give his personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant. However, the witness may not testify as to specific acts of conduct of the defendant to prove the trait in issue. QUESTION ID: E0091 Additional Learning

Question 21

If a defendant in a criminal case presents evidence of his own good character for a particular trait, which of the following is a permissible method of rebutting this evidence?

A The prosecution asks the defendant’s character witness whether he has heard about a bad act committed by the defendant, and after the witness denies it, the prosecution proves it by extrinsic evidence

B The prosecution calls another witness to testify about a bad act committed by the defendant

C The prosecution calls another witness to testify as to the defendant’s bad reputation for the same trait

D The prosecution introduces documentary proof of a bad act committed by the defendant (e.g., a criminal conviction)

Answer 21

C

If the defendant puts her character in issue, the prosecution may rebut the defendant’s character evidence by calling qualified witnesses to testify to the defendant’s bad reputation for the particular trait involved. The witness may also testify as to his own personal opinion regarding the trait at issue of the defendant. However, introducing evidence about specific acts by the defendant is not allowed (whether by calling witnesses or introducing documentary proof of the act).

If the defendant puts her character in issue by having a character witness testify as to his opinion of the defendant or the defendant’s reputation, the prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about (i.e., whether the witness knows of or has heard about specific instances of conduct by the defendant). If the witness denies knowledge of these specific instances of conduct, however, the prosecutor may NOT prove them by extrinsic evidence. QUESTION ID: E0086A Additional Learning

Question 22

Which of the following is character evidence, rather than habit evidence?

A “Ben goes to church every Sunday.”

B “Ben goes to the pub every Friday night at 7 p.m.”

C “Ben is always in a hurry.”

D “Ben always wears his seatbelt.”

Answer 22

C

“Ben is always in a hurry” is an example of character evidence because it describes a general character trait of Ben, rather than his regular response to a specific set of circumstances. “Ben always wears his seatbelt,” “Ben goes to church every Sunday,” and “Ben goes to the pub every Friday night at 7 p.m.” are all examples of habit evidence. Habit evidence concerns a person’s regular response to a specific set of circumstances. Character evidence describes one’s disposition with respect to general traits. QUESTION ID: E0099 Additional Learning

Question 23

A __________ defendant __________ introduce evidence of her own good character to show her innocence of the alleged act.

A Civil; may

B Criminal; may

C Criminal; may not

Answer 23

B

Under the Federal Rules, a criminal defendant may introduce evidence of her own good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime. In civil cases, character evidence cannot be used simply to show the person is more or less likely to have engaged in certain behavior or committed a claim offense. QUESTION ID: E0091C Additional Learning

Question 24

A defendant wants to show that she is a peaceful person and unlikely to have committed the violent crime of which she is accused.
Which of the following are both permissible ways of introducing this evidence through a character witness?

A Having the witness testify that the defendant has a reputation for peacefulness, or that he has seen her engage in specific peaceful acts

B Having the witness testify that he has seen the defendant engage in specific peaceful acts, or that he believes her to be peaceful

C Having the witness testify that the defendant has a reputation for peacefulness, or that he believes the defendant to be peaceful

Answer 24

C

A defendant may introduce evidence of her good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime. The character witness may testify as to the defendant’s good reputation (or that he has heard nothing bad) for the trait involved in the case. Under Federal Rule 405, the witness may also give his personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant. However, the character witness may not testify to specific acts of conduct. QUESTION ID: E0098C Additional Learning

Question 25

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

A During its rebuttal case, as long as the defendant testified during her case-in-chief

B Whenever the evidence makes it more likely that the defendant committed the crime in question

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

D Only if the testimony concerns specific bad acts by the defendant

Answer 25

C

In a criminal case, if the defendant puts her character in issue by calling a witness to provide reputation or opinion testimony regarding that trait of the defendant, the prosecution can then call witnesses to testify about the defendant’s character for that particular trait. This can be in the form of reputation or opinion testimony; testimony concerning the defendant’s specific bad acts is not allowed. The prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the bad character of the defendant merely to show that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused. However, if the accused introduces evidence of her good character to show her innocence of the alleged crime, the prosecution may rebut that evidence. If the defendant puts her character in issue, the prosecution can rebut that evidence regardless of whether the defendant testified. QUESTION ID: E0086C Additional Learning

Question 26

Evidence of an accused’s other crimes or misconduct is admissible if relevant to an issue other than the accused’s character or disposition to commit a crime. Which of the following is not an example of an accused’s independently relevant misconduct?

A Misconduct that shows the accused’s intent.

B Misconduct that shows the accused’s criminal disposition.

C Misconduct that shows the accused’s motive.

D Misconduct that shows the accused’s identity by modus operandi.

Answer 26

B

Evidence of other crimes or misconduct is generally admissible if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the accused’s disposition to commit the crime charged. Prior misconduct may be admissible as evidence of a motive to commit the crime for which the defendant is accused. For some crimes where intent is at issue, evidence that the defendant committed prior, similar wrongful acts is admissible to establish guilty knowledge and to negate good faith. Evidence that the accused committed prior criminal acts that are so distinctive as to operate as a “signature” to identify him (modus operandi) may be introduced to prove that the accused committed the act in question. QUESTION ID: E0088 Additional Learning

Question 27

Defendant, who is charged with murder, has pled self-defense and offered evidence that Victim was a violent person. The following is not permissible rebuttal evidence:

A Evidence that Victim was a peaceful person

B Evidence that Defendant was a violent person

C Evidence that Victim was a truthful person

Answer 27

C

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 the victim’s good character for the same trait (e.g., that Victim was a peaceful person). The prosecution may also counter with evidence of the defendant’s bad character for the same trait (e.g., that Defendant was a violent person). It is not permissible for the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding any trait (e.g., that Victim was a truthful person); it must be on a trait that counters the defendant’s evidence. QUESTION ID: E0092B Additional Learning

Question 28

Evidence of a prior bad act or crime is not admissible to prove:

A Absence of mistake

B Opportunity

C Motive

D Propensity to commit crime

Answer 28

D

Prior acts or crimes are not admissible to show criminal propensity. However, Federal Rule 404(b) goes on to say that such prior acts or crimes may be admissible for other purposes (e.g., to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident). QUESTION ID: E0094B Additional Learning

Question 29

Under the Federal Rules, __________ is not a permissible manner of showing the defendant’s good character in a criminal case.

A Calling a witness to give his personal opinion concerning the trait in issue of the defendant

B Calling a witness to testify as to the defendant’s good reputation for the trait involved in the case

C Calling a witness to testify to the defendant’s specific acts of conduct to prove the trait in issue

Answer 29

C

Under the Federal Rules, the witness may not testify as to specific acts of conduct of the defendant to prove the trait in issue in a criminal case. A defendant may call a qualified witness to testify as to the defendant’s good reputation (or that he has heard nothing bad) for the trait involved in the case. Under Federal Rule 405, the witness may also give his personal opinion concerning that trait of the defendant. QUESTION ID: E0091A Additional Learning

Question 30

Character evidence is admissible in a civil case to:

A Prove that the defendant is a good person

B Prove a particular character trait, when that character trait is an essential element of the claim or defense

C Prove that the defendant likely acted in accord with her prior behavior pattern on the day in question

Answer 30

B

Where a particular character trait is an essential element of a claim or defense, evidence on that trait is admissible. Character evidence is never admissible simply to prove that the defendant (or plaintiff) is simply a good person or someone that the trier of fact should favor. Evidence 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. QUESTION ID: E0085A Additional Learning

Question 31

A defendant is charged with murdering a gang member. Evidence that prior to the murder, the defendant joined a rival gang known for selling drugs in the area may be admissible to prove:

A That the defendant is a violent person

B That the defendant associates with people who commit crimes, and is therefore more likely to commit crimes himself

C That the defendant had a motive for the killing

Answer 31

C

Evidence of other crimes or misconduct, such as membership in an organization known for committing crimes, may be admissible if these acts are relevant to some issue other than the defendant’s character or disposition to commit the crime charged (e.g., to show motive for the crime). Evidence of the defendant’s other crimes or misconduct is inadmissible if such evidence is offered solely to show that the defendant is disposed to commit crimes, or is a violent person. QUESTION ID: E0094A Additional Learning

Question 32

In a criminal case, the prosecution may present evidence of the defendant’s bad character:

A By eliciting witness testimony regarding prior specific acts of misconduct by the defendant

B Only when the defendant’s character is directly at issue in the case

C If the defendant has presented evidence of the alleged victim’s bad character for the same trait

D Only by cross-examination of the defendant

Answer 32

C

Once the defendant has introduced evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged victim, the prosecution may counter with reputation or opinion (but not specific acts) evidence of the defendant’s bad character for the same trait. Character evidence is admissible in civil cases only when character is directly at issue in the case, but this rule is not applicable to criminal cases. Evidence of a defendant’s bad character may be introduced not only by cross-examination of the defendant, but also by calling other witnesses to testify as to the defendant’s bad character. QUESTION ID: E0101A Additional Learning

Question 33

Which of the following is a civil claim where character evidence may be admissible because character is “directly in issue?”

A Battery claim, to show that defendant is violent and likely liable.

B Breach of contract claim, to show that defendant is untrustworthy and likely to have breached the contract.

C Negligent hiring claim, to show that the person hired by the defendant is unstable.

D Product liability claim, to show that defendant is careless and likely liable.

Answer 33

C

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. For example, 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. 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 ID: E0090 Additional Learning

Question 34

In a civil case involving sexual assault, under what circumstances will evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the alleged victim be admissible?

A Only where the behavior involves prior instances of sexual conduct with the accused

B 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

C Only where the behavior indicates that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence

D Never

Answer 34

B

In civil 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. Evidence offered to prove the sexual disposition or behavior of the alleged victim is 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. However, the standard for civil cases allows evidence of a victim’s sexual disposition or behavior where it is otherwise admissible under the Federal Rules and where its probative value outweighs the danger of harm to the victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. QUESTION ID: E0097 Additional Learning

Question 35

Under what circumstances is evidence of a defendant’s prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation admissible?

A In any civil or criminal case where the defendant is accused of committing an act of sexual assault or child molestation.

B In a civil or criminal case where the defendant is accused of committing an act of sexual assault or child molestation and only if the prior act involved the same victim.

C Only in a criminal case where the defendant is accused of sexual assault or child molestation.

D Only in a civil case where the defendant is accused of committing an act of sexual assault or child molestation.

Answer 35

A

Evidence of a defendant’s prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible in a civil OR criminal case where the defendant is accused of committing an act of sexual assault or child molestation. The prior act need not have involved the same victim. QUESTION ID: E0093 Additional Learning

Question 36

When a defendant has introduced evidence of a bad character trait of the alleged victim, the prosecution may counter with any of the following except __________.

A reputation evidence of the victim’s good character for the same trait

B reputation evidence of the defendant’s bad character for the same trait

C opinion evidence of the defendant’s bad character for the same trait

D opinion evidence of the victim’s good character for any trait

Answer 36

D

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 (i) the victim’s good character for the same trait, or (ii) the defendant’s bad character for the same trait. It is not permissible for the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding any trait; it must be on a trait that counters the defendant’s evidence. QUESTION ID: E0092 Additional Learning

Question 37

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).
Which of the following is not true regarding the admissibility of independently relevant prior misconduct?

A Its probative value on the issue of motive, intent, identity, or other independently relevant proposition must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

B It may be admissible without a preliminary ruling.

C It is admissible in criminal cases, but not in civil cases.

D There must be sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the defendant committed the prior act.

Answer 37

C

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: (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). QUESTION ID: E0096 Additional Learning

Question 38

In which of the following situations may the prosecution introduce evidence of the defendant’s bad character to establish she probably committed the crime charged?

A Where the defendant chooses to testify.

B Where character is directly in issue in the case.

C Where the defendant first introduces evidence of her good character.

D Where the defendant’s bad character shows that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused.

Answer 38

C

If the defendant introduces evidence of her good character, she puts her character in issue and the prosecution may rebut by presenting evidence of the defendant’s bad character. The general rule is that the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the defendant’s bad character merely to show that she is more likely to have committed the crime of which she is accused. However, if the defendant puts her good character into issue, the prosecution may rebut with evidence of the defendant’s bad character. Character evidence is admissible in civil cases where character is directly in issue (i.e., defamation, negligent hiring). This rule does not apply to criminal cases. 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 ID: E0089 Additional Learning

Question 39

Evidence of a defendant’s prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible:

A Only in a civil case where the defendant is accused of committing an act of sexual assault or child molestation

B In any civil or criminal case where the defendant is accused of committing an act of sexual assault or child molestation

C Only in a criminal case where the defendant is accused of sexual assault or child molestation

Answer 39

B

Evidence of a defendant’s prior acts of sexual assault or child molestation is admissible in a civil OR criminal case where the defendant is accused of committing an act of sexual assault or child molestation. The party who intends to offer this evidence must disclose the evidence to the defendant 15 days before trial (or later with good cause). QUESTION ID: E0093A Additional Learning

Question 40

A character witness testifies as to the defendant’s good character. The prosecution cross-examines the character witness regarding the defendant’s specific instances of misconduct.
If the witness denies knowledge of the defendant’s acts, when may the prosecution seek to prove them through extrinsic evidence?

A Never, the prosecution is limited to inquiry on cross-examination

B Only if the acts of misconduct occurred within the last 10 years

C Always

D Only if the witness is shown to be biased in favor of the defendant

Answer 40

A

The prosecution may test the character witness by cross-examination regarding the basis for his opinion or knowledge of the reputation that he has testified about. Under the Federal Rules, this can be done by asking the witness if he has “heard of” or “knows of” the specific acts of misconduct by the defendant. However, if the witness denies knowledge of these specific instances of conduct, the prosecutor may not prove them by extrinsic evidence; he is limited to inquiry on cross-examination. This is an absolute rule; even where the character witness is impeached by other means (e.g., to show the witness is biased), the prosecution cannot present extrinsic evidence about the defendant’s prior acts of misconduct if the witness denies knowing about them. It also does not matter whether the act of misconduct is recent (e.g., occurred within the last 10 years) or remote. QUESTION ID: E0095 Additional Learning

Question 41

Character evidence is admissible in a civil case if __________.

A it is offered to show a good character trait only

B the defendant “opens the door” by introducing evidence of his good character

C the evidence is in the form of reputation or opinion only

D character is directly in issue

Answer 41

D

Where character is directly in issue in a civil case, character evidence is admissible. A defendant in a criminal case may “open the door” by introducing evidence of his own good character to show his innocence, thus allowing the prosecution to rebut with evidence of his bad character. However, this rule does not apply to civil cases. Where character evidence is allowed in a civil case (i.e., when character is directly at issue), under the Federal Rules, any of the types of character evidence (reputation, opinion, or specific acts) may be used. Character evidence is admissible in a civil case if it is directly in issue, regardless of whether it is offered to show a good character trait or a bad character trait. QUESTION ID: E0085 Additional Learning