whats an updog wrote:Samarcan wrote:A question I have been struggling with: Themis says that in a criminal case, a defendant can introduce specific prior acts/conduct if they are inconsistent with a character trait that is an essential element of the crime charged. Critical Pass flashcards (card #6, for anyone curious) says that a criminal defendant can only introduce his own good character, even when pertinent to the charged crime, by reputation or opinion testimony not specific instances.
Is this an inconsistency, or am I missing a nuance? Please help clarify if you can!
Where are you seeing in Themis that it's okay to introduce specific acts? In the Evidence outline (page 11 of MBE Outline, page 12 of CA outline), it says that a defendant can only prove their own good character by reputation testimony or opinion testimony.
Page 11 of the main MBE Evidence outline (I'm taking in NY), it says in the shaded gray box: "When character or a character trait is an essential element of the crime charged, the defendant may introduce relevant specific acts inconsistent with the crime. Fed. R. Evid. 405(b)."