How Character Witnesses Fit Into the Legal System
Character witnesses are individuals called to testify on behalf of either the accused or the plaintiff (the person seeking compensation) in civil or criminal cases. The purpose of character witnesses is to provide testimony regarding the good or bad character of someone involved in a legal proceeding. Character witnesses can testify to the moral integrity, behavior and reputation of the person in question by describing a specific incident. This testimony is meant to help the judge or jury determine what type of person the individual is, or if they have a propensity for criminal or otherwise negative behaviors . Character evidence is allowed in certain circumstances, and thus character witnesses are typically allowed to offer such testimony. If the character of the accused is brought into question, then witnesses who can speak to his or her good character may be called to counter it. For example, character evidence may be permitted if the character of the crime is an essential element of the case. This is known as the "pertinent character trait." A pertinent character trait may be like the aggressor’s aggressive character or promiscuous sexual history in a sex assault case.
The Impact of Character Witnesses on a Case
The impact of character witnesses’ testimonies on a legal case can manifest itself in various ways. Ultimately, the value of a character witness will be measured against the credibility of their testimony. A strong and believable character witness is an asset to any case, while a character witness whose testimony raises doubts about the credibility of the defendant can actually hinder their case. In many situations, the personality of a character witness can play a role in how valuable their testimony will ultimately be. Not all personality types are taken as seriously by the court. For example, a character witness who consistently lies about the drug issues of the individual they are testifying for may not be believed when they say that the individual completely left their drug-focused past behind them and reformed their life. Credibility also hinges on the relationship between the character witness and the defendant. Typically, character witnesses have to know the defendant closely in order for their testimony to affect the outcome of a case. This typically means that the witness is family, a close friend, co-worker or someone else who genuinely knows the person and trusts their character and intentions. If the character witness has never met the defendant in person, for example, their character testimony is probably not going to carry much weight with the judge.
Legal Issues Surrounding the Use of Character Witnesses
The use of character witnesses is a common occurrence in court proceedings. Whether in a criminal, civil or family case, lawyers often call upon character witnesses to vouch for client’s generally good character or controversial past. Some clients may wonder whether character witnesses really help and if there are legal considerations that must be met.
Character witnesses can make a positive impression in court, and the jury or judge heeds or ignores them according to the perceived credibility of the witness. Credibility is not the only factor that determines whether character witnesses succeed in helping a case. The following three legal criteria are also considered, and must be met, in order for character witnesses to be admissible in court proceedings.
Character witnesses are limited to providing testimony only about certain issues in a case. In the context of a criminal court, the accused person’s character is not admissible evidence; therefore, voluntary witnesses may not be called to give their opinion about the accused’s character. On the other hand, prosecution is permitted to provide rebuttal witnesses to rebut a specifically alleged defense, and testimony that comes from rebuttal witnesses is limited solely to answering specific questions asked by the judge or jury.
In most instances, the judge provides a cautionary instruction when calling character witnesses, reminding jury members that even though the accused is a person who, in their own individual opinion, has good character, the virtue of good character does not mean that the accused did not commit the crime for which they are charged.
In a trial involving a civil case, the presiding judge has more discretion regarding the admissibility of testimony and evidence, especially if the testimony or evidence is intended to prove character as it relates to a claim or defense that is in issue.
On the whole, the following rules are followed by the presiding judge in a civil action: The above-mentioned criteria do not take precedence over any laws or provisions that have been established in the Federal Rules of Evidence. This means that the Federal Rules of Evidence may be used independently of these standards to determine if testimony provided by character witnesses, and specialized evidence such as polygraph tests, is admissible or not.
Character witnesses are an admissible type of evidence, and they do not necessarily have to testify about every single element of a claim or defense. Most importantly, this evidence does not require supporting evidence and is not subject to the same rules that govern admissibility standards for expert opinion, which has a much higher bar of qualification to meet.
However, both for criminal and civil cases, admissibility standards for lay witnesses are much less stringent than those for expert witnesses. For example, admissibility for a lay witness does not require the witness to be fully qualified or educated in a particular field. A layperson is not required to have technical knowledge or expertise in a specific area in order to render testimony about a given subject. While lay witnesses can provide evidence in regard to well-known facts, expert witnesses provide testimony in regard to issues that may not be known or easily understood.
For these reasons, character witnesses may not be as damaging as defendants think they will be. If character witnesses are admissible in court, their limited scope and ability to influence in regard to their testimony may only serve to prove for or against whether defendant committed the crime for which they are being prosecuted or defend against a particular claim being presented in civil court. Regardless, character witnesses do not hold a substantial degree of influence over any verdict, making them less of a threat to defendant.
Case Examples: The Use of Character Witnesses
While the idea of utilizing character witnesses may at first seem like a good idea, does this notion actually pan out in court? As it turns out, individuals who have actually been in real court situations (such as defendants who have hired character witnesses) have recorded several positive and negative outcomes, showing that while in some instances, character witnesses have had a direct impact on the results of a case, other situations reveal pretty clearly that the practice is rather pointless.
The American courts contain several examples of how character witnesses have played a major role in the outcome of a court case. A 1996 Los Angeles Times article examined the use of character witnesses in the trial of O.J. Simpson, who was indicted on charges for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and their friend Ronald Goldman. For the case, celebrity publicist and celebrity management director Wallace Budge was brought in as a character witness. At the trial, he stated that he "never knew O.J. to tell a bald-faced lie" and also described Simpson as "a loving person" and "a wonderful father." The defense put forth this testimony in order to argue that O.J. Simpson was non-violent and did not commit any murder, therefore proving that there was no way he could have committed the crime he was accused of. In the end, many experts explained that although not completely responsible , the character witnesses in the O.J. Simpson trial helped solidify his acquittal of the charges against him.
The Canadian courts contain several examples that led to an incredibly positive outcome for defendants utilizing character witnesses. In both R v Marquard and R v Oikal, the accused were faced with defamation charges. In R v Marquard, a man was accused of uttering defamatory behavior when he was charged for allegedly having applied "unjustified force" to a fellow hockey official during a hockey game. The accused, who pleaded not guilty and testified during his trial, called 12 character witnesses to testify on his behalf that they had never known him to be violent. In the end, the judge freed the accused when he found that the accused had acted "in good faith and that he did not intend to inflict ‘spiritual or mental anguish’ on his accuser."
In R v Oikal, a racist remark that one man made to another during a bar fight was the basis for a defamation charge. In court, the prosecutor stated that the accused had made "a racist slur in an extremely aggressive manner." The accused then called four character witnesses to testify to his lack of a racist background and his general lack of aggression. In the end, after listening to the testimony of the character witnesses, the court found the accused not guilty. The Canadian courts reveal how character witnesses can be utilized to protect an individual from a charge on the basis of his general disposition and character.
Advice on Choosing and Preparing Character Witnesses
When it comes to selecting character witnesses for court, there are several strategies that can help increase the effectiveness of their testimonies and ultimately bolster your case. One important tip is to choose someone who knows the client well enough to speak to their current state of mind in a meaningful way. A general acquaintance or former co-worker may not be able to provide the kind of testimony that makes a real impact on a judge and jury.
Another key consideration is the characteristics of the potential witness. Are they well-spoken? Are they articulate and confident? Do they have the ability to convey their message clearly and effectively? If not, it may make more sense for you to find another person to take the stand.
In addition to selecting appropriate witnesses, it is extremely important to prepare them properly for their courtroom appearance. What this means is you should hold mock practices with your witnesses where they can become accustomed to the setting and learn how best to communicate with the judge.
The legal team should coach the witness on these important aspects of their testimony so they can present themselves in the best possible light.
Potential Downsides to Character Witnesses
Character witnesses are not immune to cross-examination; as noted in the second section, a good prosecutor will get them on the witness stand, where they become vulnerable to attack. The prosecutor will often start with questions that seem reasonable, but as in all things in the accusations of crimes involving children, one of the first questions will be why they should believe the defendant’s character witnesses. The further the witnesses move from the defendant, the more susceptible they will be to this line of questioning, which further serves to remove the jurors from the defendant and place their focus on the one being accused.
Character witnesses also are vulnerable to bias, intentional or unintentional. It is not uncommon for the prosecutor to attempt to hack into the character witnesses’ links to the defendant. Generally , if a character witness knows that they have spoken previously to the prosecutor, including social services, or the police, the prosecutor will highlight this connection in such a way that it appears the character witness is biased toward the accused.
Finally, as with any area of criminal law, the prosecutor is often on their dope. They will have played specific games with a person in the same or similar role as the character witnesses, so they understand how to break their story down, while telling a good story about why it should be taken down. A good prosecutor can "interrogate" a character witness as if they were a witness to the events in question. Their goal is shutting the character witness down and upping their credibility.