Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The admissibility of character evidence to allow the defendant to prove the character trait of a victim is limited, however, if the lawsuit is for rape or assault with the intent to commit rape. If the reputation or opinion evidence is being offered by the defendant to show the rape victim's past sexual conduct, character evidence is inadmissible.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case "to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals as to whether the trial court must make a preliminary finding before 'similar act' and other Rule 404(b) evidence is submitted to the jury." [4] Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the unanimous court. Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: [5]
Hale v. Committee on Character and Fitness for the State of Illinois, 335 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2003), was a decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the court refused on procedural grounds to disturb the Illinois Committee on Character of Fitness's denial of a license to practice law to Matthew F. Hale, on the ground that he lacked the moral character ...
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay ...
The Criminal Justice Act does provide a specific provision for the exclusion of bad character evidence, [13] where it may be excluded if it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. Essentially, bad character evidence may be ...
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]
The Court held that Kyles should be granted a new trial. The Court noted Brady v.Maryland (1963), which held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.
Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that a person's rights of association and due process, as granted under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, cannot be infringed upon if such an association has no bearing on the case at hand.