this video will present an introduction to rule 404 of the federal Rules of Evidence and its prohibition on the use of character to show propensity rule 404 prohibits evidence of character 404a says that evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion that person acted in accordance with the character or trait in other words you are not allowed to use character evidence to show propensity what do we mean by character well some examples are old Chief is a violent person Sally is a drunk or John is a law-abiding person character can be either good or bad 404 prohibits that kind of character to show that they did something on this particular occasion so because he's a violent person we can't use that to show he's more likely to have committed this violent crime 404 also prohibits evidence of specific crime wrongs or acts so in addition to evidence that someone has a particular character you cannot use evidence of a previous crime wrong or other Act to show their character to show that they acted in accordance with that character importantly 404b only prohibits evidence of these acts to show propensity such prior acts may be admissible for another purpose there the some purposes are listed for you here in 404b but these are not exclusive and 404 allow such evidence for any other purpose as long as it is not to show action in Conformity with a particular character trait we'll discuss some of these other possible purposes motive opportunity intent preparation plan Etc also important to realize that on request a a prosecutor must provide notice of of his intent to use other acts to prove other purposes under 404b uh the defendant can be prepared then for um a 403 argument why that evidence should be kept out nonetheless so 404b talks about specific crimes wrongs or other acts those specific crimes are not admissible in order to show the character of the person in order to show action in Conformity so again it's the character itself that is problematic using a previous act in order to show character in order to show action in Conformity therewith what's often difficult is figuring out that this hidden propensity is there that it's propensity evidence that you're asking um the jury to use because sometimes it sounds like you're permit you're admitting it for another purpose when really what you're admitting to show is that they're more likely to have done it because they've done something like this before so the hit the Forbidden inferences are using these evidence of other acts to show character to show action and Conformity therewith to prove someone did a current thing now this uh obviously is tilted towards criminal because that just seems to be the time uh the type of Prior acts that we see the most evidence of a defendant other acts in order to show they did something charged but note the character is inadmissible for any type of case whether it is uh a crime whether it is a bad act whether it is before or after the particular event at issue whether it's a simil civil or a criminal case no matter whose character it is we're trying to talk we're trying to introduce and finally 403 may result in exclusion even if 404 does not so what you would first find is is there another purpose for bringing in the evidence of the prior act if you have another purpose articulated under four 4B then 404 will not keep out the prior act but 403 might you will do your balancing then and ask if the probative value of this evidence in proving that non-proposal outweighed by the risk of unfair Prejudice including Prejudice that the jury may use that prior act for The Forbidden purpose of character so what we're trying to do in avoiding the quote propensity box is finding an admissible other purpose evidence of the ACT not to prove bad character to show action and Conformity therewith but to prove something else like motive intent plan Etc if you have that other purpose then it is not character and and you have not violated 404 you might however uh be excluded the evidence might be excluded under 403 some routes that we have discussed in class that avoid propensity include proof of knowledge we saw a problem where a particular person had knowledge of how to hack into a computer system and therefore showing that they had done this on a previous occasion was admissible to show knowledge of how to hack into that particular computer we also saw in the people V daily clip clip that one argument for admiss admissibility of evidence that the defendant said he had been in the military and he knew how to get rid of a dead body uh might show knowledge because the body of the current victim is missing however that's something that could very easily be outweighed under 403 because knowledge of how to get rid of a dead body is not as specific as knowledge of how to hack into a computer system finally we saw in train crash example that uh in a civil case the fact that the train company knew or should have known that the conductor had been drunk on previous occasions and had um a problem with drinking would be admissible to their knowledge of uh of that fact and whether they were negligently entrusting the train to him whether they were negligent in hiring or maintaining his employment second we've talked about proof of motive in Peltier we saw that evidence of the fact that there was an outstanding warrant against Peltier was evidence of of motive in his shooting of uh policemen who were chasing him unarmed or uh undercover policemen in the Presumed Innocent clip we saw that evidence that the defendant had an affair with the victim might be uh another act that comes in for proof of motive rather than proof of his bad character um having an affair third we saw proof of identity and this is one I think is most problematic because it's easily articulated but often there is hidden propensity involved when you're talking about identity in in Peltier again uh the police found both peltier's gun and one of the agents guns in the van when they stopped pel a his gun could be brought in to show ident identity because it was the same type of gun used in this crime the agent's gun his possession of the agent's gun could be brought in because the agent is one of the ones that was actually killed so having his gun in your van shows your identity as the killer uh the closer in time and and circumstances between the axe the more like ly that they will go to Identity as being instead just another way of saying propensity M Mo or signature crime evidence requires very similar prior instances in trankler we saw that the previous bombing was uh had a lot of earmarks as being the handiwork of the same defendant if that's the case then it's like a special identity argument it's not just the that it's more likely that this person did it it's that it is more likely that anyone else it's less likely that anyone else could have done it because it is that person's emo other routes include rest ji we said where the particular evidence comes into to explain something so that the jury understands the other facts better inextricably intertwined uh in the Russian Roulette example uh the jury was able to hear that the defendant had pointed the gun at the witness's head so that the jury could understand better and believe better her story that she remembered seeing this specific gun several years previously in US versus de George uh evidence of his prior insurance claims was admissible to explain why he couldn't get the insurance in his own name in this instance and had to go through a series of um security transactions and uh different company formations in order to get the insurance another example is absence of accident for this purpose to apply the defendant needs to be arguing that it was an accident evidence that the defendant claimed the same accident previously is evidence that it's less likely it actually was an accident because his behavior would have changed had this man actually killed his previous wife while he was cleaning his gun we all think that he would be a lot more careful uh cleaning his gun in front of his second wife finally the doctrine of chances is a little bit different from absence of accident because the doctrine of chances is something that is so unique uh it's really not possible that it would happen this number of times instead of it being an accident that the defendant claims defendant is claiming that something happened um by chance and uh if there have been a number of other instances just like this then the doctor of chances says that it is less likely that it actually was chance and more likely that it was done by Des sign when other evidence does come in for another purpose when you have successfully articulated that nonpr purpose then what is the proof of that other act coming in so in the brides and the bath case uh we are able to admit proof of a previous bride dying in her bath what is the standard of proof of that if our defendant was never convicted of that prior crime then how do we show that it actually happened what the court said in Huddleston is that this is an issue for the jury and so long as a reasonable jury could find by preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the other act then the judge should submit this evidence to to the jury the judge does not herself weigh The credibility of the evidence or make a finding that the defendant committed the act the judge simply examines it and finds could a reasonable jury find that this happened in Huddleston itself the other Act was that the defendant had sold stolen goods on a previous occasion the defendant said that the government couldn't prove that those previous televisions were actually stolen uh and the court said that the standard was not Beyond A Reasonable Doubt or by clear and convincing evidence instead the St the standard was could a reasonable jury find that the televisions were stolen um by preponderance of the evidence so 104 deals with such preliminary questions about admissibility of evidence and conditional relevance under 104 a which deals with uh whether a witness is qualified whether a privilege exists or whether evidence it is admissible the court itself decides whether that evidence comes in um this is a preliminary question for the court outside the hearing of the jury instead if we're talking about relevance that depends on a fact conditional relevance then proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding by the jury that the fact does exist so could a reasonable jury find that this fact does exist what the court said in hudston is that proof of this other act that we have found evades the propensity box because we have another purpose for it proof that it actually happened which is what it's depended on it's conditional relevance because only if it actually happened is it relevant if that's the case then all that's required is enough evidence that a jury could find it by preponderance the court May conduct a hearing so that the jury cannot hear uh the arguments of the parties about whether in fact this evidence does come in