Question 1

There are no exceptions to the general rule that character evidence is not admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion.

Accepted Answer

There are exceptions to this rule, such as when character evidence is used to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Question 2

In a criminal case, evidence of the defendant's character is admissible when offered by the accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the testimony offered by the accused.

Accepted Answer

In a criminal case, the defendant can introduce evidence of their own good character as a defense strategy, and if they do, the prosecution is then allowed to introduce evidence to rebut this claim, challenging the defendant's character evidence presented.

Question 3

Evidence offered by an accused about the character of the victim may be allowed if it is relevant to the matter at issue and is not unduly prejudicial.

Accepted Answer

In legal proceedings, evidence about a victim's character can be admitted if it is relevant to the case and its probative value outweighs any potential prejudice.

Question 4

Character evidence may not be used by the prosecution to rebut the testimony offered by the defendant.

Accepted Answer

Character evidence may be used by the prosecution to rebut the testimony offered by the defendant if the defendant introduces evidence of their own good character first, thereby opening the door to such rebuttal by the prosecution.

Question 5

Whether criminal or civil, evidence about the character of a witness may not be admitted for impeachment purposes.

Accepted Answer

In both criminal and civil cases, evidence about the character of a witness can be admitted for the purpose of impeaching the witness's credibility, although there are rules and limitations governing how and when such evidence can be introduced.

Question 6

Generally, evidence rules hold that the credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation.

Accepted Answer

Evidence rules often allow the credibility of a witness to be attacked or supported by evidence that takes the form of opinion or reputation, as long as it pertains to the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Question 7

The general rule is that evidence cannot be offered that defendant had been convicted of burglary or rape in order to show that the defendant had a propensity to commit these types of crime, i.e. if they did it once, they'd do it again.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true because, in general, evidence of a person's character or character traits (including previous convictions) is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion, the person acted in accordance with those character traits. This rule is designed to ensure that a defendant is judged based on the evidence related to the crime they are currently being charged with, not their past actions. However, there are exceptions to this rule under certain circumstances, such as when the evidence is offered for another purpose, like proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Question 8

Although evidence of other crimes and prior bad acts is admissible to prove someone's inherent character, it may not be used to show other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, or means.

Accepted Answer

Evidence of other crimes and prior bad acts is generally not admissible to prove someone's character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character. However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, depending on the rules of evidence applicable in the jurisdiction.

Question 9

Evidence of past sexual assaults may be used to show the defendant's identity, where the defendant attacked the victims in a similar way.

Accepted Answer

In legal proceedings, evidence of past sexual assaults can be used under certain circumstances to show a pattern of behavior or modus operandi, which can help establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator in the current case. This is often referred to as "propensity evidence" and is admissible if it proves something specific like the defendant's identity, motive, or method of operation, and if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial impact.

Question 10

Even when found to be relevant under Rule 404 (b) or a similar rule, evidence of prior bad acts may still be excluded under Rule 403, if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.

Accepted Answer

Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows the court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of, among other things, unfair prejudice, even if the evidence is relevant under Rule 404(b) or similar rules regarding character evidence and crimes, wrongs, or other acts.

Question 11

Courts have agreed that virtually all evidence offered by the prosecution in a criminal case is prejudicial to some degree against the accused, so the courts will exclude under Rule 403 only if it is prejudicial to a defendant.

A) unfairly
B) not
C) minimally
D) in any manner

Accepted Answer

The answer of Courts have agreed that virtually all evidence...

Question 12

Under Rule 410, which of the following is not admissible against a defendant who made the plea or was a participant in the plea discussions?&#10;A) Evidence of a plea of guilty which was later withdrawn&#10;B) An admission to a criminal charge, later withdrawn&#10;C) A plea of nolo contendere&#10;D) All of the above

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under Rule 410, which of the following...

Question 13

Although evidence of other crimes and prior bad acts is generally not admissible to prove someone's inherent character, it may be used to show other purposes, such as all of the following, except:&#10;A) proof of motive&#10;B) opportunity&#10;C) means&#10;D) propensity to commit these types of crimes

Accepted Answer

The answer of Although evidence of other crimes and prior...

Question 14

Evidence of other crimes and prior bad acts may be used to show all of the following, except:&#10;A) intent&#10;B) modus operandi&#10;C) identity&#10;D) prior experience in committing similar crimes

Accepted Answer

The answer of Evidence of other crimes and prior bad...

Question 15

How a person's character is generally viewed or estimated by others in that person's community is known as:&#10;A) Reputation&#10;B) Opinion&#10;C) Habit&#10;D) Routine Practice

Accepted Answer

The answer of How a person's character is generally viewed...

Question 16

A judgment or conclusion made by a witness based on the witness's own personal knowledge or perception is known as:&#10;A) Reputation&#10;B) Opinion&#10;C) Habit&#10;D) Routine Practice

Accepted Answer

The answer of A judgment or conclusion made by a...

Question 17

A person's customary practice or pattern of behavior when repeatedly engaging in particular actions or situations is known as&#10;A) Reputation&#10;B) Opinion&#10;C) Habit&#10;D) Routine Practice

Accepted Answer

The answer of A person's customary practice or pattern of...

Question 18

A regular course of conduct of a group of persons or an organization in response to repeated specific situations is known as&#10;A) Reputation&#10;B) Opinion&#10;C) Habit&#10;D) Routine Practice

Accepted Answer

The answer of A regular course of conduct of a...

Question 19

In this classic case, the Supreme Court examined the issues surrounding the admissibility of reputation evidence, finding that "[w]hat commonly is called 'character evidence' is only such when 'character' is employed as a synonym for 'reputation.'" This case decision has been widely quoted and cited in discussions about character and reputation evidence.

A) Michelson v. United States
B) Huddleston v. United States
C) Sparks v. Gilley Trucking Co.
D) United States v. Schuler

Accepted Answer

The answer of In this classic case, the Supreme Court...

Question 20

Under this legal rule, if a company makes repairs or improves a safety feature after an accident, those repairs or improvements will not be admissible against the company to prove that the company caused the accident or was negligent at the time of the accident.

A) Subsequent Remedial Measures
B) Shield Laws
C) Routine Practice
D) Nolo Contendere

Accepted Answer

The answer of Under this legal rule, if a company...

Deck 6: Witnesses