0702

The prosecutor's response would be the same regardless of the objection. Her job is to identify a reason why the evidence is relevant. Personally, I would not try to save item A (Smallwood) because there is no clear evidence this defendant was responsible. Other prosecutors would decide otherwise.

For item B (Bombita’s testimony) I would say:

"The testimony by Bombita is not being offered to prove character, but for the specific purpose of proving identity, which is one the exceptions listed in Rule 404(b). The way the crimes were perpetrated is so distinctive that it is like a signature, and there can be only one 3-person gang committing drug robberies where one wears a Pokemon shirt. Proof that the defendant has been identified as the perpetrator in that case strongly suggests that she is also the assailant in this case, and in the absence of eyewitnesses, the probative value is high."

Note that a fairly long explanation of the probative value is required.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu and refer to 0702


Problem 7B, part one -- Hickman is on trial for arson, malicious destruction of property beloinging to his ex-wife, and reckless endangerment. The prosecutor offers evidence of several past acts of domestic violence by Hickman toward his ex-wife. If the defense objects that this is inadmissible character evidence, how should the prosecutor respond?

Make your response as specific as you can, and then click here.