Also known as: character witnesses
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A witness who testifies about another person's character traits or community reputation. The testimony takes the form of reputation evidence or personal opinion when character evidence is admissible under the rules.
Christopher Collins stands trial for fraud. He calls Cynthia Cortez, a longtime colleague, to testify that Collins enjoys a reputation for honesty in their industry. On cross-examination the prosecutor asks Cortez whether she has heard about Collins's prior submission of false expense reports.
Cade Carpenter faces theft charges and offers Charlotte Chung as a character witness. Chung states that Carpenter has a good reputation for law-abiding conduct in their neighborhood. The prosecutor inquires on cross-examination whether Chung has heard of Carpenter's arrest years earlier for receiving stolen property.
In 1947 Solomon Michelson stood trial in federal court on a charge of bribing a revenue agent. The government introduced evidence that Michelson had made a substantial cash payment to the agent. Michelson testified in his own defense, admitting the payment but claiming the agent had demanded, threatened, and induced it. On direct examination Michelson's counsel brought out that he had been convicted in 1927 of a misdemeanor involving counterfeit watch dials. Cross-examination further showed that in 1930, when applying for a license to deal in second-hand jewelry, Michelson had answered "No" to a question asking whether he had ever been arrested or summoned for any offense. Michelson called five character witnesses who had known him for fifteen to thirty years. Each witness testified on direct examination that Michelson's reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and being a law-abiding citizen was very good, based on conversations with others in the community. On cross-examination the prosecutor asked four of the witnesses whether they had ever heard that Michelson had been arrested on October 11, 1920, for receiving stolen goods. None of the witnesses had heard of the incident. Outside the presence of the jury the prosecutor assured the trial judge that the arrest had occurred and produced a supporting record that defense counsel did not challenge. The trial judge gave the jury limiting instructions on three separate occasions concerning the purpose of the questions. Michelson was convicted on the bribery count. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
View caseCurtis Cannon pleads guilty to a shooting. At sentencing he calls Carmen Choi and six other witnesses who testify that he lacks any reputation for racial bias. The judge nonetheless finds the offense was motivated by bias after crediting contrary evidence.
The witness may describe the subject's reputation in the community or give a personal opinion about the relevant trait. Specific instances of conduct are not admissible on direct examination but may be inquired into on cross-examination of the character witness.
Supporting sources
A criminal defendant may offer pertinent character evidence to suggest conformity with the trait. Once offered, the prosecution may rebut with its own character evidence. In civil cases the trait must be an essential element or the evidence must serve another admissible purpose such as impeachment or rehabilitation.
A judge may not testify voluntarily as a character witness. The judge must be duly summoned by subpoena before testifying in that capacity.
The cross-examiner may ask whether the witness has heard of or knows about relevant instances of conduct. The question tests the basis of the reputation or opinion testimony, but the acts themselves are not proved by extrinsic evidence.
Calling a character witness places the defendant's character for the pertinent trait at issue and opens the door to rebuttal character evidence. It does not automatically place the defendant's general credibility at issue for impeachment purposes.
…the issue of Apprendi's "purpose" for the shooting on December 22. Apprendi adduced evidence from a psychologist and from seven character witnesses who testified that he did not have a reputation for racial bias. He also took the stand himself, explaining that the incident was an unintended consequence of overindulgence in alcohol,…