Legal Questions and Answers This question asks whether a federal

Under Section 404(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the government is generally banned from presenting evidence of a defendant's bad character in order to prove that the defendant committed the crime by showing that the defendant acted in conformity with this character. The reason for this ban is that such evidence can result in too high a degree of prejudice. One exception to this rule, however, is that the defendant can introduce evidence of his own character in order to prove that he did not commit the offense charged. Although many have argued that there is little basis in logic for this exception, historically it has been accepted because it is felt that a criminal defendant should have every opportunity to prove his innocence. Perrin v. Anderson, 784 F.2d 1040, 1044 (1986).

The Federal Rules of Evidence then allow the government to present character evidence which contradicts that introduced by the defendant. The government can only present such evidence, however, if the defendant first offers evidence of his own character to prove that he did not commit the offense. Fed. R. Evid. §404(a)(1)-(2). Thus, the government's evidence can only be used to rebut the defendant's evidence as to character. Strictly speaking, it is no

. . .
truthful person. This might be analogized to the situation where the existence of the character evidence is directly related to the offense itself, which involves dishonesty. This evidence could not be used to prove that the defendant committed the offense. Question 6 This question involves a situation where the defendant and a witness called on his behalf were convicted of fraud less than ten years prior to the trial. The question concerns the admissibility of the fraud convictions with regard to the defendant and the witness. In such a situation, the convictions could be used to impeach the credibility of the defendant and the witness. However, the convictions must be used separately: the conviction of the defendant for impeaching his credibility and the conviction of the witness for impeaching the witness' credibility. Both convictions would be just as likely to be admitted. Again, the analysis revolves around the use of the evidence for the purpose of impeaching credibility, rather than for proving that the defendant committed the offense charged. The convictions are direct evidence that the defendant and the witness have not been truthful in the past and that their testimony may be untruthful now. If one were to
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Citing Rule, Derrick Bell's, Supreme Court, Justice Douglas, Rules Evidence, Michigan Furthermore, McCormick Evidence, Charles Black's, Fed Evid, Committee Note, defendant committed, defendant committed offense, desegregation plans, committed offense, evidence character, specific instances, character evidence, prove defendant, 108 ct, question concerns, instances conduct, prove defendant committed, de jure segregation, federal rules evidence, specific instances conduct,
Approximate Word count = 3138
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page)