Blog
Blocking Bad Acts Evidence Under FRE 404 in Counterfeiting Trials
Contents
Blocking Bad Acts Evidence Under FRE 404 in Counterfeiting Trials
Evidence of prior bad acts is often sought to be introduced in counterfeiting trials by prosecutors. However, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 limits the admissibility of such evidence. This article will examine the key issues surrounding FRE 404 and strategies for blocking bad acts evidence in counterfeiting cases.
FRE 404(b)(1) states that evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with that character. So prosecutors cannot introduce evidence of a defendant’s prior counterfeiting crimes or wrongful acts to show that the defendant has a propensity for counterfeiting and therefore committed the crime charged.
However, FRE 404(b)(2) does allow admission of prior crimes, wrongs or acts evidence for other purposes, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. Prosecutors often use these exceptions to get the bad acts evidence admitted.
For example, in a counterfeiting case, the prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant’s prior passing of counterfeit bills to prove his knowledge that the bills were counterfeit. The appeals court upheld admission of the evidence under 404(b)(2) to prove knowledge.
So how can defense attorneys block this evidence? Here are some key strategies:
File a Motion in Limine
File a motion in limine before trial seeking exclusion of the bad acts evidence. Argue that the evidence is improper character evidence under 404(b)(1). The motion puts the prosecution on notice and allows the judge to rule on admissibility before trial.
Argue the Evidence is Irrelevant
Argue the prior acts are not relevant to the charged crime. For example, a prior counterfeiting offense does not necessarily show knowledge – the prior crime could have been accidental or unknowing. The prior act must share similarities and be closely connected to the charged offense.
Argue Unfair Prejudice
Under FRE 403, even relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Evidence of prior counterfeiting could lead the jury to convict based on past crimes rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt of the charged crime.
Limit the Scope
Argue to limit the scope of the bad acts evidence if allowed. For example, limiting details about how many times the defendant passed counterfeit bills or how much counterfeit money was passed.
Request a Limiting Instruction
If the judge allows the prior acts evidence, request a jury instruction that it can only be used for the specific permissible purpose argued by the prosecution, and not as improper character evidence. This limits the prejudice.
Object at Trial
If the judge denies the motion in limine, object again when the prosecutor introduces the evidence at trial. Renew the relevancy and unfair prejudice arguments. Objections must be made to preserve the issue for appeal.
Attack Credibility
Challenge the credibility of the witness testifying about the prior acts. For example, cross-examine a case agent about uncertainty over dates and details to undermine the reliability of the testimony.
Introduce Rebuttal Evidence
Offer rebuttal evidence contesting the prior acts, such as alibi testimony, financial records, or other witnesses who contradict the prosecution’s version of events. This provides the jury with an alternative explanation.
While FRE 404 limits the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence, prosecutors often find creative ways to get it admitted. By taking the proactive defense strategies outlined above, advocates can exclude prejudicial evidence and safeguard their client’s right to a fair trial. The key is thoroughly researching case law, filing detailed motions attacking relevance and prejudice, limiting scope if admitted, and vigorously contesting the evidence before and during trial.
The Bottom Line
FRE 404 is designed to prevent admission of prior bad acts evidence to show a defendant’s character and propensity to commit crimes. But prosecutors often get the evidence admitted under the exceptions in FRE 404(b)(2). Defense counsel must file motions in limine, argue lack of relevance and unfair prejudice, limit the scope, request jury instructions, object at trial, attack credibility of witnesses, and rebut the evidence. This comprehensive approach provides the best chance at blocking bad acts evidence and upholding the protections of FRE 404.