🦅
Federal Evidence • Character Evidence
EVID#079
Legal Definition
Habit evidence requires the repeated, same response to the same stimulus. In contrast, custom refers to a practice or routine of an organization or group. Both are admissible to show the party likely acted in conformity with the habit or custom.
Plain English Explanation
Habit evidence shows a person's consistent way of responding to a certain situation. Custom evidence refers to a common practice or way of doing things. Both types of evidence can be used in court to suggest that a person probably acted in the usual way they respond to a situation or followed a common practice.
For example, imagine you have a friend who always drinks a cup of coffee first thing in the morning. This is their habit. It's something they do regularly, almost without thinking. Now, imagine a business that always gives its employees a bonus at the end of the year. This is a custom - a usual practice or routine they follow.
In a courtroom, if someone's usual behavior (habit) or a company's routine practice (custom) is important to a case, lawyers can use this information. For example, they might say, "This person always locks their door at night," to suggest they probably did so on a particular night. Or, they might say, "This company always checks equipment safety every month," to show it's unlikely they neglected this in a specific case. The idea is to use what usually happens to help figure out what probably happened in a specific situation.
Students often confuse habit and custom evidence (which is admissible) with character evidence (which is more restricted and less admissible). Character evidence might include aspects like honesty, aggression, or reliability. Unlike habit or custom, which are about specific, repeated actions or practices, character evidence is broader and more general. It’s about who a person is, rather than what they routinely do.
For example, while habit evidence might show that someone always stops at red traffic lights, character evidence would be about whether that person is generally law-abiding or reckless. Similarly, while custom evidence might demonstrate that a company regularly trains its employees on safety protocols, character evidence would be more about the company’s overall reputation for safety.
In a legal context, character evidence is often restricted because it can lead to unfair assumptions. Jurors might be swayed to think, "This person is generally dishonest, so they must be lying now," which isn't always a fair or relevant conclusion. Habit and custom evidence, however, are more about specific behaviors in specific situations, making them more directly applicable to the case at hand.
For example, imagine you have a friend who always drinks a cup of coffee first thing in the morning. This is their habit. It's something they do regularly, almost without thinking. Now, imagine a business that always gives its employees a bonus at the end of the year. This is a custom - a usual practice or routine they follow.
In a courtroom, if someone's usual behavior (habit) or a company's routine practice (custom) is important to a case, lawyers can use this information. For example, they might say, "This person always locks their door at night," to suggest they probably did so on a particular night. Or, they might say, "This company always checks equipment safety every month," to show it's unlikely they neglected this in a specific case. The idea is to use what usually happens to help figure out what probably happened in a specific situation.
Students often confuse habit and custom evidence (which is admissible) with character evidence (which is more restricted and less admissible). Character evidence might include aspects like honesty, aggression, or reliability. Unlike habit or custom, which are about specific, repeated actions or practices, character evidence is broader and more general. It’s about who a person is, rather than what they routinely do.
For example, while habit evidence might show that someone always stops at red traffic lights, character evidence would be about whether that person is generally law-abiding or reckless. Similarly, while custom evidence might demonstrate that a company regularly trains its employees on safety protocols, character evidence would be more about the company’s overall reputation for safety.
In a legal context, character evidence is often restricted because it can lead to unfair assumptions. Jurors might be swayed to think, "This person is generally dishonest, so they must be lying now," which isn't always a fair or relevant conclusion. Habit and custom evidence, however, are more about specific behaviors in specific situations, making them more directly applicable to the case at hand.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam works at a bakery where it is customary to always check the expiration dates of ingredients before baking. One day, a customer claims they got sick from eating expired goods from the bakery. Result: The bakery's custom of regularly checking expiration dates could be used to argue that it's unlikely they used expired ingredients.
Hypo 2: Bob always jogs in the park at 6 AM. One morning, someone is attacked in the park at 6:15 AM. Bob is accused but claims he was jogging elsewhere. Result: Bob's habit of jogging in the park at 6 AM could be used against him, suggesting he was likely in the park around the time of the attack.
Hypo 4: Sam's company has a custom of conducting safety drills every month. During a lawsuit, a former employee claims the company neglects safety training. Result: The company’s custom of regular safety drills can be used to counter the claim of neglecting safety training.
Hypo 2: Bob always jogs in the park at 6 AM. One morning, someone is attacked in the park at 6:15 AM. Bob is accused but claims he was jogging elsewhere. Result: Bob's habit of jogging in the park at 6 AM could be used against him, suggesting he was likely in the park around the time of the attack.
Hypo 4: Sam's company has a custom of conducting safety drills every month. During a lawsuit, a former employee claims the company neglects safety training. Result: The company’s custom of regular safety drills can be used to counter the claim of neglecting safety training.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
How do California's rules differ from the Federal rules when it comes to introducing character evidence in a case involving sexual assault or child molestation?
How is the process of offering character evidence generally handled in California?
How is the process of offering character evidence generally handled under the Federal rules?
If the defendant offers evidence of a victim's bad character, what can the prosecution offer to rebut?
In California, if the defendant offers evidence of a victim's violent character, what can the prosecution offer to rebut?
In California, when can prior acts of domestic violence or elder abuse be admissible?
In cases involving sexual assault, when may a defendant introduce specific act evidence?
What is character evidence?
When assessing character evidence, what are non-character purposes?
When is character evidence admissible in civil cases?
When is character evidence admissible in criminal cases?
When is character evidence admissible in homicide cases involving self defense? What kinds are admissible?
When is evidence of prior sexual assault or child molestation admissible?
