This question asks whether a federal court would be more likely to admit government evidence of a defendant's bad character if the defendant first presents evidence of his good character. The answer to this question is yes.
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. ยง404(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 not being used to prove that the defendant committed the offense.
This question concerns whether a court would be more likely to admit character evidence presented by the defense which consisted of testimony by a witness as to the defendant's reputation in the community or that consisting of testimony by a witness describing specific acts of kindness by the defendant. The answer is that a court is more likely to admit evidence about reputation than about specific acts....