The Degrading Character Rule in American Criminal Trials

The rule prohibiting evidence of the accused's badcharacter is steadily degrading as courts and legislaturesexpand existing exceptions and add new ones. In Georgia, we saw the rule almost disappear as trial courts blithelyadmitted a defendant's past crimes to prove his or her"bent of mind" to commit the crime charged. This Articleexamines why the character rule is losing ground.The thesis is that a rule requiring as much carefulbalancing as the character rule needs a clear, strongjustification to hold its own when faced with competingclaims to admit the evidence in the search for truth. Themost widespread justifications offered for the characterrule are neither clear nor strong.

They rely heavily on aclaim that the rule prohibiting character evidenceimproves accuracy and the search for truth-a claim thatis difficult to defend. The character rule is best viewed asa moral position rather than an epistemic tool. The ruledefends the presumption of innocence and a moralpreference to err on the side of acquittal-even if thatmeans "the truth" is unrevealed in some instances. Unlessthis moral justification for the character rule is revivedand replaces the current weak, epistemic justification inthe minds of judges and legislators, the rule will continueto degrade.