Evidence Tip

Assume defendant, an accountant, has been charged with fraud for allegedly helping a client file false tax returns. The prosecution offers evidence of the defendant’s involvement in an earlier scheme to help a different client file false tax returns. 

Is that evidence admissible?

 

It depends. If the prosecution is offering the evidence to show that the defendant has the character of someone who would commit tax fraud, then no. That’s exactly the kind of propensity evidence that does not get admitted. Improper character evidence. 

 

But what if the defendant has claimed that this was all an honest mistake. And the prosecution is offering this evidence of defendant’s involvement in a prior scheme to rebut that “honest mistake” defense. The theory is that multiple identical mistakes are not likely. Then the evidence may well get admitted. 

 

I bring all that up for one reason. Evidence makes a lot more sense when you ask why the evidence is offered, rather than what evidence is offered. Asking what evidence is offered here isn’t helpful; that evidence likely gets admitted for one purpose, and likely does not get admitted for another.  Always ask why and the subject starts to make a lot more sense. 

*note: the above implicates what is commonly referred to as the MIMIC rule. But go a step further to understand rather than just memorize.