Why does so much evidence about a defendant’s character get admitted, even though the law supposedly rejects the propensity inference? This question highlights a fundamental problem in evidence law – the shaky rationale for the anti-propensity rule, and the complications surrounding the many exceptions to the rule. Professor Arthur Best will address these issues and more in this character evidence Lawdible.
Apparently, even though there are big risks of prejudice and imprecision when we admit character evidence to show action in conformity with that character, some common-sense feelings about that evidence support the use of some major exceptions to the prohibition.
A defendant may introduce evidence of his or her own good character and may introduce evidence about an alleged victim’s character for aggressiveness, for example. The prosecution may respond with additional character evidence. The combination of a general prohibition and a variety of exceptions suggests that the law may have only moderate allegiance to the basic anti-propensity rule.
CALI Lesson pairing: Character Evidence Under Federal Rules
Professor Best’s faculty profile is here.
Podcast: Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify | RSS
Kay Lincoln // Nov 15, 2011 at 2:32 am
The whole character evidence is very problematic, I really don’t think that it should be continued to be used at court.
Tweets that mention » Character Evidence: Evidence law’s anti-propensity inference rule and its exceptions. – Arthur Best Lawdibles -- Topsy.com // Apr 20, 2010 at 10:34 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CALI. CALI said: New Lawdible:: Character Evidence: Evidence law's anti-propensity inference rule and its exceptions. – Arthur Best http://bit.ly/brMaFF […]