Document Category: Character Evidence

This motion argues that evidence of a client’s alleged substance use must be excluded because it constitutes impermissible character evidence under FRE 404(a), poses a high risk of unfair prejudice under FRE 403, and invites unqualified medical opinion testimony in violation of FRE 701. Citing social-science research showing that jurors associate substance use with immorality, violence, and dishonesty, the motion argues that such evidence leads jurors to condemn defendants based on stigma rather than proof of guilt, rendering the evidence unfairly prejudicial. Finally, it explains that terms such as “addict,” “dependence,” and “abuse” describe medical diagnoses that only qualified experts may offer, rendering lay testimony about addiction inadmissible.

This motion argues that, in cases where the government must prove a prior conviction as an element of the offense, the trial should be bifurcated into two phases. In the first phase, the jury should hear evidence about the non-prior-conviction elements. Only if the jury returns a guilty verdict on these elements should the government be allowed to present evidence on the prior-conviction element. The motion relies on social science research demonstrating that (a) juries make propensity-based inferences when they learn about a defendant’s prior conviction; (b) these propensity-based conclusions are stronger in cases involving Black defendants due to implicit biases; and (c) limiting instructions do not effectively stop jurors from engaging in improper propensity-based reasoning. Because the prior conviction has no probative value with respect to the non-prior-conviction elements and bifurcation provides an easy way to remove the danger of unfair prejudice without compromising the prosecution’s need for the evidence on the prior-conviction element, the motion asks the court to join others around the country and split the guilt-phase of the trial into two different segments.

This ten-page sample motion argues that judges should not consider a client’s record of prior police contacts, including arrests, that did not result in criminal convictions for purposes of sentencing because such records are (1) inherently unreliable/ambiguous and (2) likely to exacerbate existing racial disparities in the criminal legal system. The motion draws on national data and jurisdiction-specific case studies to show that people of color, particularly Black Americans, are stopped, searched, arrested, and charged at disproportionately high rates, not because of higher rates of crime commission but because of implicit bias in law enforcement. This sample motion also uses local data from Washtenaw County, Michigan, that defenders should replace with their own jurisdiction’s data when available, to demonstrate that these national trends are reflected in the defendant’s jurisdiction as well.  Data from this motion could also be useful to defenders drafting 4th Amendment suppression motions or making evidentiary arguments at trial to exclude evidence of prior police contacts.  To the extent that the court or the prosecutor bring up prior police contacts at pre-trial release hearings, this data could also be useful to argue for exclusion of prior contacts during bail/pretrial release assessments.

This sample motion relies on social science showing that the “sex offender” label evokes strong negative emotional responses to argue that Rule 403 should prohibit all references to a client as a “sex offender.” The motion also discusses alternative labels that are less likely to evoke prejudicial responses.

In this amicus brief, the ACLU of Iowa relies on social science to point out that juries are likely to (a) form negative impressions of criminal defendants who are associated with rap music, (b) view rap lyrics are more truthful and literal than lyrics from other musical genres; and (c) associate those who write or perform rap lyrics with criminality and bad character.  Pages 16-32 discuss why singing along to rap music is not typically probative in a criminal case, because fictional violent imagery is prevalent throughout popular culture and media, including in hip hop and rap music, but it is a form of artistic expression rather than journalism or autobiography.  Pages 35-37 collect social science research showing the danger of unfair prejudice by noting that jurors are more likely to form negative impressions of defendants as involved in general criminal activity when defendants are associated with rap music. And pages 26-27 discuss the problematic racial justice implications of such findings given that hip hop and rap are associated with Black people and Black culture.

This brief challenges Washington Evidence Rule 609 under the Washington State Constitution and objects to the introduction of a prior robbery conviction for impeachment purposes. The brief cites research showing that the admission of prior convictions against criminal defendants has minimal, if any, probative value on the defendant’s truthfulness as a witness, and instead lowers the prosecutor’s burden because of high risk of prejudice (p. 3-7). The brief explains that the categorization of robbery as a crime of dishonesty comes from antiquated honor norms rather than social science (p. 7-9). The brief also discusses the disproportionate impact of impeachment with prior convictions on defendants of color (p. 13-16).

The ACLU of Michigan included these reports as exhibits in its recent litigation attacking the constitutionality of Michigan’s Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA). Does v. Whitmer (Does III), No. 22-cv-10209 (E.D. Mich.). The research cited in these reports — specifically on the low risk of recidivism among people convicted of sexual offenses and the counterproductive impact of registration/notification requirements on public safety and recidivism — could be used (1) when negotiating with a prosecutor for a plea to a non-registration offense, (2) when justifying such a plea to a sentencing judge, (3) in pre-trial release arguments, (4) in sentencing arguments where clients will be forced to register to show the onerous nature of registration, or (5) to support a motion in limine to preclude reference to a client as a “sex offender.”

(Note that the following page numbers are keyed to the page numbers in each expert report, which you can find in the middle bottom footer of each report):

Letourneau Report

Pages 2-11: Explaining through a dozen different scientific studies that sex offender registration and notification laws fail to increase community safety, do not have a general deterrent effect, and may even increase the incidence of crime by making it difficult for ex-offenders to find and maintain housing, employment, and social relationships.

Pages 11-12: Noting that researchers have found no connection between juvenile registration/notification and an increase in public safety but they have found increased incidences of attempted suicide among juvenile registrants as well as an increase in their likelihood of being victims of sexual assault themselves.

Pages 12-13: Citing research showing that 80% to 90% of adult males convicted of sex offenses are never reconvicted of a new sexual crime, including studies that debunk recidivism myths by showing rates of recidivism as low as 2-5%.

Pages 13-14: Discussing research showing that conviction offense has no bearing on recidivism risk.

Pages 16-17: Citing research showing the negative impact of registration on people’s mental health and ability to find and maintain stable housing, employment, and prosocial relationships, creating barriers for reintegration.

Pages 17-20: Discussing why the costs of implementing sex offender registration and notification laws are greater than any savings or benefits generated by those laws

Pages 21-22: Finding no correlation between failure-to-register violations and sexual recidivism

Socia Report

Pages 4-8:  Citing research showing that 90-95% of all sex crime arrests are for first-time offenders; the vast majority of sex crimes are not committed by strangers; and sex offender registration and notification laws do not reduce recidivism or make communities safer

Page 9-12:  Debunking through scientific research any suggestion that there is a high sexual recidivism rate and noting that sexual recidivism rates are actually lower than those of any other offense except murder

Pages 16-17:  Noting that language matters to public perceptions and that individuals are more likely to think negatively about someone described as a “sex offender” than someone described as an “individual convicted of crimes of a sexual nature” (this research might support a motion in limine about how clients should be described in court)

Pages 19-22:  Documenting how individuals on the sex offender registry are stigmatized in ways that affect reintegration including compromising employment and housing opportunities, as well as social support networks

Pages 22-25:  Noting that there is no consistent evidence that failure-to-register convictions predict increased sexual recidivism.

Details the dilemma that admitting a prior felony conviction results in: if the defendant testifies and his conviction is introduced, research shows there is a heightened risk that the jury will use the prior conviction to “draw an impermissible inference.” However, if the defendant chooses not to testify in order to prevent his conviction from being introduced, research shows people are more likely to find him guilty because he did not testify.

p. 22-38 discuss the use of 404(b) “other acts” evidence and why evidence of drug possession is not relevant to intent to distribute drugs. The brief goes on to outline research demonstrating that such “other acts” evidence is highly likely to improperly prejudice the jury in a way that cannot be cured by a limiting instruction.

p. 9-13 cite research on jury bias, impact of prior conviction evidence, and inefficacy of limiting instructions about prior convictions

p. 8 – 12 outline existing research on how jurors respond to and use evidence of prior convictions. Incorporates research demonstrating that limiting instructions do not cure the prejudice, as jurors still use prior convictions as propensity evidence even when instructed not to.