Rule 404a2 - The Mercy Rule

Question 1

+ William Hart, former Chief of Police in Detroit, was charged with embezzling department funds. The prosecutor’s evidence showed that some of Hart’s misuse of funds involved Kenneth Weiner, one of Hart’s deputies. Weiner ran several bogus corporations and Hart funneled over $1 million to those corporations. The companies performed no legitimate law enforcement services; the prosecutor argued that Hart and Weiner took the funds for their own use. Weiner pled guilty to his role in the fraud, and the prosecution did not call him as a witness at Hart’s trial. Hart built his trial defense around the claim that Weiner committed the embezzlement on his own; Hart’s attorneys argued that the Police Chief believed he was paying for legitimate law enforcement services from Weiner’s company, and that Weiner duped him.
+ To buttress his defense, Hart’s attorneys tried to introduce evidence of Weiner’s dishonest character. Admissible?
+ What kind of character evidence could Hart admit?

Answer 1

Answer:
+ To buttress this defense, Hart’s attorneys tried to introduce evidence of Weiner’s dishonest character. Is that evidence admissible?
No. Rule 404(a)(2) allows a defendant to offer character evidence about his own character or about the victim’s character, but it does not recognize any other exceptions. Weiner, as an alleged participant in the embezzlement, is not covered under the Rule.

+ What kind of character evidence could Hart admit about himself?
+ Law abiding
+ Gullible