Time for another Perry Mason moment to go down the tubes. Many, many, many times, I meet with clients or prospective clients who try to lend credibility to their side of the case by seeking to destroy the credibility of the "other guy." People constantly want to show me what a dirt bag the other guy is to make sure I know just how badly they have been wronged. It is not uncommon to hear accusations that the "other guy" must have bribed county employees or stolen the money to make the deal or set up corporations to commit a fraud. Look, they, tell me, he's done this dozens of times.
If you are one of these people - as most of us are, I have terrible news for you. It doesn't matter. No, seriously, it doesn't matter. Bad character is not admissible in court to prove that the "other guy" did something wrong to you. In fact, even specific bad acts, including most crimes, are not admissible "when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity."
There are two exceptions to this. If you commit a crime of dishonesty or any felony, those prior bad acts can be levied against you to attack your credibility as a witness. But that's about it.
If it sounds frustrating, that's because it is. The idea of holding someone accountable for their history or apparent predisposition is what we, as people, do every day in the regular course of our lives. Of course, this tendency is leads to some very subjective conclusions and inaccurate results, but there are very few consequences for just thinking something in your head. In a court of law, there are very real consequences for putting meaning to thoughts or predispositions that have no objective means of verification. Sure, your sister stole some candy bars from the drug store when she was 15, but that doesn't mean she cleaned out your bank account. Allowing people to make those kinds of connections leads to some very dangerous places.
No comments:
Post a Comment