Also known as: FRE 406 · Federal Rule of Evidence 406 · Rule 406 · habit · routine practice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal evidentiary rule that permits proof of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice to show that the person or organization acted in conformity with that habit or routine on a specific occasion. The rule allows admission of such evidence whether or not it is corroborated and whether or not an eyewitness observed the conduct in question.
Forrest Falconer routinely texted while walking through his office hallways each morning. When he was struck by a delivery cart in the lobby, the defense offered testimony of his texting habit to show he was distracted at the moment of impact. The court admitted the evidence to prove conduct on that occasion.
Faith Fitzgerald always took the same shortcut through an alley on her way home from work. After she was injured in the alley, the defense introduced evidence of her regular route to establish she followed the habit on the day of the accident. The court allowed the testimony despite lack of corroboration.
Frank Fisher deposited cash at Fairfield Bank every Friday afternoon without fail. When the bank claimed a deposit was missing, Fisher offered evidence of his weekly habit to prove he made the deposit on the disputed Friday. The court admitted the evidence to show conformity with the routine practice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Floyd Franklin inspected every machine at Franklin Foundry at the start of each shift. After an injury occurred on a machine that had not been checked, the plaintiff introduced evidence of the inspection habit to show the machine was inspected that morning. The court permitted the testimony.
Freya Freeman always locked the rear door of her restaurant before leaving each night. When cash went missing after closing, she offered evidence of her locking habit to prove the door was secured on the night in question. The court admitted the evidence regardless of eyewitness testimony.
Faye Fuller sorted incoming mail at Ferrum Metals by sender every morning before opening any envelopes. When a critical notice was allegedly overlooked, the company introduced evidence of her sorting habit to show she followed the routine on that day. The court allowed the evidence.
Evidence of habit is admissible to prove that a person acted in accordance with the habit on a particular occasion. The rule permits admission whether the evidence is corroborated and whether an eyewitness was present.
Supporting sources
Habit describes a person's regular response to a repeated specific situation. Character is a generalized description of disposition. Habit evidence is admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion while character evidence is generally not.
Supporting sources
Yes. Even if the evidence shows a habit, it must still make a fact of consequence in the case more or less probable. Testimony about office texting habits was excluded when it did not bear on any issue of fault or causation in the accident.
Supporting sources
…fit to avail themselves of that opportunity. ..... "Now whether or not Mr. Teale had any other money at the time or was in the habit of concealing his money in different departments, I don't know, and ladies and gentlemen, you don't know, because you have not had any testimony from that witness stand, and the only person…