Key Takeaways

  • Character evidence refers to proof of a person’s general traits—such as honesty, violence, or law-abidingness—introduced to support or challenge credibility.
  • Courts limit character evidence because it risks unfair prejudice and may distract juries from the actual facts in dispute.
  • Exceptions allow its use in criminal cases when the defendant introduces evidence of good character, when honesty is at issue, or in certain civil cases like custody or defamation.
  • Federal Rule of Evidence 404 generally prohibits character evidence to show propensity, but Rules 405–609 allow it in limited contexts (e.g., for impeachment, sentencing, or when character is an essential element of the claim).
  • The prosecution can only attack a defendant’s character after the defense introduces good character evidence; otherwise, such evidence is generally excluded.

Character evidence: Evidence introduced in a trial which bears on the truth and honesty of a witness or party is termed character evidence. Evidence of a person's good or bad character; such evidence may give rise to reasonable doubt.

Character evidence includes criminal convictions and reputation in the community for honesty. Character evidence is usually permitted when a person's honesty is an issue, such as when a criminal defendant testifies or has been charged with perjury or fraud. It is not permitted when the defendant does not testify and the crime he is charged with doesn't involve the defendant's truthfulness (for example, the defendant is charged with illegal possession of drugs). Although used infrequently in civil cases, character evidence may be given in custody cases where the honesty of a party arguably affects their ability to be a good parent (for example, in the case of a habitual liar), or in cases of fault divorce. The opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him.

There are three classes of cases on which the moral character and conduct of a person in society may be used in proof before a jury, each resting upon particular and distinct grounds. Such evidence is admissible:

  • To afford a presumption that a particular party has not been guilty of a criminal act
  • To affect the damages in particular cases, where their amount depends on the character and conduct of any individual
  • To impeach or confirm the veracity of a witness

Federal Rules Governing Character Evidence

Modern courts rely heavily on the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) to determine when character evidence is admissible. Under Rule 404, character evidence is generally not admissible to prove that a person acted in accordance with that character trait on a particular occasion. This is sometimes called the "propensity ban."

However, Rule 404(a)(2) allows exceptions in criminal cases. For example:

  • A defendant may offer evidence of their own pertinent trait (such as honesty or peacefulness). If they do, the prosecution can respond with evidence to rebut it.
  • A defendant may also offer evidence about an alleged victim’s character (such as aggressiveness in a self-defense case). Again, the prosecution can rebut.
  • In homicide cases, the prosecution may introduce evidence of the victim’s peacefulness to counter a claim that the victim was the initial aggressor.

Other rules—Rules 405, 608, and 609—govern how such evidence may be introduced. For instance, reputation or opinion testimony may be used, but specific acts are limited to cross-examination unless character itself is an essential element of the case.

Where the guilt of an accused party is doubtful and the character of the supposed agent is involved in the question, a presumption of innocence arises from his former conduct in society as evidenced by his general character, since it is not probable that a person of known probity and humanity would commit a dishonest or outrageous act in the particular instance. Such presumptions, however, are so remote from fact, and it is frequently so difficult to estimate a person's real character, that they are entitled to little weight, except in doubtful cases. Since the law considers a presumption of this nature to be admissible, it is in principle admissible whenever a reasonable presumption arises from it as to the fact in question. In practice it is admitted whenever the character of the party is involved in the issue.

In some instances evidence in disparagement of character is admissible, not in order to prove or disprove the commission of a particular fact, but with a view to damages. In actions for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, evidence may be given of the wife's general bad character, for want of chastity and even of particular acts of adultery committed by her, previous to her intercourse with the defendant. In actions for slander and libel, when the defendant has not justified, evidence of the plaintiff's bad character has also been admitted. The ground of admitting such evidence is, that a person of disparaged fame is not entitled to the same measure of damages with one whose character is unblemished. When, however, the defendant justifies the slander, it seems to be doubtful whether the evidence of reports as to the conduct and character of the plaintiff can be received. When evidence is admitted touching the general character of a party, it is manifest that it is to be confined to matters in reference to the nature of the charge against him.

Character Evidence in Criminal Defense Strategy

Character evidence can significantly impact how a jury perceives the defendant. A defense attorney may introduce testimony about the defendant’s honesty, peacefulness, or law-abiding reputation to create reasonable doubt. This can be persuasive where the facts are close and credibility is central.

However, introducing such evidence carries strategic risks. Once the defense opens the door, the prosecution may cross-examine the character witness or present its own rebuttal witnesses. This could expose damaging information, such as prior arrests, bad acts, or negative community reputation.

For this reason, defense counsel often weighs carefully whether to present character evidence. In some cases, avoiding it prevents the prosecution from highlighting harmful details that would otherwise be inadmissible.

The party against whom a witness is called, may disprove the fact & stated by him, or may examine other witnesses as to his general character; but they will not be allowed to speak of particular facts or parts of his conduct. For example, evidence of the general character of a prosecutrix for a rape may be given, such as that she was a street walker; but evidence of specific acts of criminality cannot be admitted. The regular mode is to inquire whether the witness under examination has the means of knowing the former witness general character, and whether from such knowledge he would believe him on his oath. In answer to such evidence against character, the other party may cross-examine the witness as to his means of knowledge and the grounds of his opinion; or he may attack such witness' general character and by fresh evidence support the character of his own. A party cannot give evidence to confirm the good character of a witness, unless his general character has been impugned by his antagonist.

Character Evidence at Sentencing

Even when barred at trial, character evidence often plays a role at sentencing hearings. Judges may consider letters, testimony, or community reputation regarding the defendant’s honesty, work ethic, or family contributions. Positive evidence may mitigate penalties, while negative testimony can increase the severity of punishment.

This broader use reflects the principle that sentencing requires consideration of both the crime and the individual’s overall character.

Prosecution’s Ability to Attack Character

In criminal proceedings, prosecutors cannot freely attack a defendant’s character. They may only do so under specific circumstances:

  • Rebuttal after good character evidence: If the defense first introduces good character evidence, the prosecution can counter with evidence of bad character.
  • Impeachment of a testifying defendant: If the defendant takes the stand, prosecutors may impeach credibility through prior convictions or reputation for untruthfulness, subject to Rule 609 limits.
  • Victim character rebuttal: If the defense attacks the victim’s character, prosecutors may present evidence of the victim’s good character.

These restrictions are designed to ensure that trials focus on the facts of the case rather than broad assumptions about a defendant’s moral worth.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is the general rule about character evidence in court?
    It is usually inadmissible to prove someone acted in line with their character on a specific occasion, except under narrow exceptions in criminal or civil cases.
  2. Can the prosecution bring up my past convictions?
    Yes, but only under certain rules, such as Rule 609, which permits prior convictions to be used to challenge credibility when a defendant testifies.
  3. When is character evidence allowed in civil cases?
    It is rare but can be used when character is directly at issue, such as in defamation, child custody disputes, or negligent hiring cases.
  4. Should a defendant present good character evidence?
    It can help sway a jury, but it also allows the prosecution to introduce negative character information, so it is a strategic decision.
  5. Is character evidence considered at sentencing?
    Yes. Judges often weigh positive and negative character evidence during sentencing, even if it was excluded at trial.

If you need help with understanding Character Evidence, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel’s marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.