## Facts

- Erick R. Brown and Milagros L. Morales, Metropolitan Police Department officers, were federally charged with obstruction-of-justice-related offenses and making false statements arising from on-duty conduct.
- Before trial, Brown sought to introduce police commendations, awards, and similar materials to show good character (as an honest, law-abiding “good police officer”) and to support credibility.
- The government opposed admission, arguing the materials were improper character proof and would create unfair prejudice, confusion, and undue consumption of time.
- The court issued a pretrial memorandum opinion explaining the governing evidentiary framework under Federal Rules of Evidence 404, 405, and 403.
- The court did not make final admissibility rulings on particular commendations or documents, reserving item-by-item decisions for trial.

## Issues

1. Under Rules 404 and 405, to what extent may a criminal defendant introduce police commendations, awards, and prior “good acts” to prove a pertinent character trait or bolster credibility?
2. If the defense offers good-character evidence, when may the government cross-examine about specific instances of conduct inconsistent with the claimed trait?
3. How should Rule 403 balancing apply to commendations and similar evidence offered to portray the defendant as an exemplary officer?

## Decision

- The court stated that a defendant may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait under Rule 404(a)(2)(A), but the form of proof is generally limited by Rule 405(a) to reputation or opinion testimony.
- The court treated commendations and awards as specific-instance evidence that is not automatically admissible to prove character and may be excluded under Rules 405 and 403.
- The court explained that if the defendant introduces good-character evidence, the government may, on cross-examination under Rule 405(a), inquire into relevant specific instances of conduct to test the foundation and reliability of the favorable character proof, subject to Rule 403.
- The court emphasized that all such evidence remains subject to Rule 403 and may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or waste of time.
- The memorandum opinion provided a framework for later trial rulings rather than admitting or excluding any identified exhibit definitively.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 404 generally bars character evidence to prove action in conformity, but Rule 404(a)(2)(A) permits a criminal defendant to offer evidence of a pertinent character trait.
- Under Rule 405(a), character is ordinarily proved by reputation or opinion testimony; specific instances are typically not admissible on direct to prove character unless Rule 405(b) applies.
- Rule 405(b) permits proof by specific instances only when character is an element of a charge, claim, or defense; in typical obstruction/false-statement prosecutions, traits like honesty or “good officer” status are not elements.
- When a defendant offers good-character evidence, the government may probe relevant specific instances on cross-examination to test the character witness’s knowledge or the basis of the asserted trait, within the court’s discretion and subject to Rule 403.
- Commendations and awards often function as specific-act character proof and may invite improper credibility bolstering or propensity reasoning; courts may exclude them when they risk turning the trial into a collateral inquiry about the defendant’s career rather than the charged conduct.

## Conclusion

The court set a pretrial evidentiary framework limiting a police-officer defendant’s use of commendations and awards as character evidence to the forms permitted by Rules 404 and 405, warned that such proof can open the door to government cross-examination about contrary specific acts, and required strict Rule 403 balancing to prevent unfair prejudice, confusion, and undue distraction from the charged offenses.


United States v. Brown, 503 F. Supp. 2d 239 (D.D.C. 2007)