Character Evidence

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Saks ◽  
Barbara A. Spellman
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Basic Rule ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Records ◽  
Witness Credibility ◽  
Judicial Instructions ◽  
Character Evidence ◽  
Evidence Rules ◽  
Special Rule ◽  
Sexual Conduct

The basic rule limiting character evidence is quite sensible. Personality traits predict less than most people (including jurors) realize; situations, and person-by-situation interactions, are more potent forces. As the law suspects, people tend to perceive the behavior of others through lenses of propensity; consequently, they over-attribute and over-predict consistency between character and conduct. In fashioning the character evidence rules, common law judges correctly diagnosed a problem and took steps to temper those attributional tendencies to avoid inaccurate and unfair verdicts. The rules allow numerous exceptions, admitting some character evidence out of fairness or to permit helpful evidence while barring its most misleading variants. For example, defendants in criminal cases are permitted to offer evidence of their own character or the character of a victim. Other exceptions are made to assist factfinders to evaluate witness credibility. A special class of that rule deals with witnesses’ criminal records: a maze of sub-rules governs admissibility of prior crimes. Research finds that people tend to rely on prior crime evidence for its improper propensity purpose, contrary to judicial instructions about the limited use to which it may be put. A relatively new set of rules permits prior criminal sexual conduct to be admitted, allowing factfinders to draw inferences about “any matter to which it is relevant.” These rules are controversial because they invite jurors to engage in the very propensity thinking that centuries of evidence doctrine prohibited. Moreover, behavioral data do not support the theory behind a special rule for prior criminal sexual conduct.

14. Character evidence I

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Glover
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Important Case ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Third ◽  
Evidential Value ◽  
Character Evidence ◽  
The Common ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section discusses the uses and development of character evidence from the common law through to the codification provided by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The second section deals with evidence of character in civil cases, covering defamation cases; evidence of good character; and evidence of bad character. The third section focuses on evidence of good character in criminal cases, including the important case of Hunter [2015] 1 WLR 5367, and covers admissibility and methods of proof; kinds of evidence permitted; rebuttal of evidence of good character; and evidential value of evidence of good character.

15. Character evidence II

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Glover
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Sexual History ◽  
Youth Justice ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Character Evidence ◽  
S 100 ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of

This chapter discusses the evidence of bad character in criminal cases since the abolition of the common law rules relating to it. It covers the definition of bad character under ss. 98 and 112 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; evidence of bad character of accused and the admissible gateways under s. 101; evidence of bad character of persons other than accused under s. 100; safeguards in relation to evidence of bad character under s. 103; and other statutory provisions dealing with bad character, in particular those dealing with sexual history questioning: s. 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

CRIMINAL RECORD, CHARACTER EVIDENCE, AND THE CRIMINAL TRIAL

Legal Theory ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard L. Lippke
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Criminal Record ◽  
Specific Character ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Records ◽  
Trace Evidence ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
The Real ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
Character Evidence

The question addressed here is whether evidence concerning defendants' past criminal records should be introduced at their trials because such evidence reveals their character and thus reveals whether they are the kinds of persons likely to have committed the crimes with which they are currently charged. I strongly caution against the introduction of such evidence for a number of reasons. First, the link between defendants' past criminal records and claims about their standing dispositions to think and act is tenuous, at best. Second, noncharacter, or trace, evidence should have primacy in determining the guilt or innocence of defendants. Third, character evidence will vary in its freshness and specificity. Other things being equal, only relatively fresh and specific character evidence has probative value. Moreover, such evidence will have greater probative value in criminal cases where the issue before the court is whether a crime has been committed than in cases where the issue is whether it was the defendant who committed the crime. Finally, we might be more sanguine about the introduction of fresh and specific character evidence under conditions likely to work against its misuse or misinterpretation. However, the relevant conditions may not often be satisfied in the real world of criminal trials and defendants.

18. Hearsay Evidence

2019 ◽  
pp. 337-354
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Personal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Hearsay Rule ◽  
Oral Evidence ◽  
Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence in criminal cases most often arises in two situations: if a witness testifies about facts of which he has no personal knowledge because the facts were communicated to the witness by another person who is not in court; and where a witness’ written statement is put before the court because the witness is unable to attend court to give oral evidence. This chapter discusses the general rule of hearsay evidence; identifying hearsay evidence; statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule; hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; hearsay admissible under the preserved common law rules; procedure for admitting hearsay evidence; and hearsay evidence and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950.

9 Criminal Justice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dickson Brice
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

This chapter selects five issues within the sphere of criminal justice to exemplify how the Irish Supreme Court has made its mark in the field. It looks first at the Court’s approach to the principle that prosecutions should be ended if they are unfair to the defendant and then moves to related issues surrounding use of the Special Criminal Court. It considers whether the Supreme Court has done enough to police the Special Criminal Court and whether reforms are necessary in that domain. In examining the Supreme Court’s views on the right to bail and on the admissibility of evidence which has been obtained unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally (with particular reference to the Damache and JC cases), comparisons are made with other common law jurisdictions. A final section looks at the Supreme Court’s position regarding the retrospectivity of declarations of incompatibility in criminal cases.

The wilder permutations of section 1 (f) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898

Legal Studies ◽  
1987 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roderick Munday
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Character Evidence ◽  
Abnormal Operation

As Sir Richard Eggleston has justly observed, ‘The whole subject of character evidence in criminal cases is complex and difficult and much has been written about it. Although this rings true for section l(f) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, the remoter areas of that provision still remain comparatively unexplored. This paper will concentrate upon the abnormal operation of sub-provisos (ii) and (iii).Section 1 (f) provides that, if he elects to give evidence, an accused shall neither beasked nor required to answer ‘any question tending to show that he has committed or been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that wherewith he is then charged, or is of bad character.’ The effect of this general prohibition is, in Cardozo CJ’s words, that ‘in a very real sense a defendant starts his life afresh when he stands before a jury.

18. Hearsay Evidence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Personal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Hearsay Rule ◽  
Oral Evidence ◽  
Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence in criminal cases most often arises in two situations: if a witness testifies about facts of which he has no personal knowledge because the facts were communicated to the witness by another person who is not in court; and where a witness’ written statement is put before the court because the witness is unable to attend court to give oral evidence. This chapter discusses the general rule of hearsay evidence; identifying hearsay evidence; statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule; hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; hearsay admissible under the preserved common law rules; procedure for admitting hearsay evidence; and hearsay evidence and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950.

18. Evidence of character: evidence of bad character in criminal cases

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Character Evidence

This chapter discusses the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal cases under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, namely: the admissibility of the bad character of a person other than the defendant and the requirement of leave; the admissibility of evidence of the bad character of the defendant under various statutory ‘gateways’, including the gateway by which evidence may be admitted if it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution; and safeguards including the discretion to exclude evidence of bad character and the judge’s power to stop a case where the evidence is contaminated. Procedural rules are also considered, as is the defendant’s right to challenge evidence of bad character.

scholarly journals ALTERNATIF MEDIASI PENAL DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA DI INDONESIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
Reyner . ◽  
Dian Andriawan Daeng Tawang
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Wide Society ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Law Enforcement Officials ◽  
Special Rule ◽  
Investigation Process ◽  
Regulations And Guidelines

In general, penal mediation can be said as a concept that brings together the victims and criminals to discuss their interests and willingness in order to resolve criminal cases that have occurred between them, and are assisted by a mediator who is neutral and help to resolve criminal cases by giving advice and mediating as mediators. The results of the research conducted by normative research and through several literature such as legal books, regulations, and guidelines, show that in fact, reason mediation has been carried out in the community and carried out by several law enforcement officials in the framework of the settlement process criminal. What is done in the midst of Indonesian society is only a peace process that shows customary law as its branch and many are applied within the police in the investigation process to carry out procedures for resolving criminal acts. The importance and need for penal mediation to be applied in formal law that is developing and prevailing in society can be a special rule that is regulated and is part of criminal procedural law for the sake of legal certainty. Penal mediation can be applied at the level of investigation by the police in the process of resolving criminal cases and creating equal welfare and justice in the wide society for sure

18. Hearsay Evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Personal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Hearsay Rule ◽  
Oral Evidence ◽  
Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence in criminal cases most often arises in two situations: if a witness testifies about facts of which he has no personal knowledge because the facts were communicated to the witness by another person who is not in court; and where a witness’ written statement is put before the court because the witness is unable to attend court to give oral evidence. This chapter discusses the general rule of hearsay evidence; identifying hearsay evidence; statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule; hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; hearsay admissible under the preserved common law rules; procedure for admitting hearsay evidence; and hearsay evidence and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document