## Facts

- The United States filed a civil enforcement action against Ronald Peterson and his property-management company, alleging sex discrimination in housing in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
- The government planned to prove its claims primarily through testimony from multiple former tenants of Peterson.
- Before trial, the government moved in limine to exclude certain categories of evidence that Peterson intended to present.
- Peterson sought to offer evidence of his “good character” (including character as a landlord) to suggest he was unlikely to have engaged in the alleged discriminatory conduct.
- Peterson also sought to impeach certain government witnesses with evidence of prior misdemeanor convictions, including assault, driving while on a suspended license, carrying a concealed weapon, and malicious use of a telephone.
- In addition, Peterson sought to introduce evidence that some government witnesses had been evicted by landlords other than Peterson.
- Peterson argued the eviction evidence was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show a “common scheme” by tenants to avoid paying rent and a motive for accusing landlords of discrimination.
- The government argued the defense evidence was improper character or propensity evidence and that the impeachment proof did not satisfy the Federal Rules of Evidence and would distract the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a civil FHA discrimination case, the defendant may introduce general “good character” evidence to show he likely did not commit the alleged discriminatory acts.
2. Whether the defendant may impeach government witnesses with prior misdemeanor convictions that do not involve dishonesty or false statement under Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609.
3. Whether evidence that government witnesses were evicted by other landlords is admissible under Rule 404(b) to show a “common scheme” or motive to fabricate, or whether it is inadmissible character evidence and/or excludable under Rule 403 and Rule 608(b).

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion in limine and excluded the challenged categories of evidence.
- The court barred Peterson’s proffered good-character evidence as impermissible character/propensity proof in this civil case.
- The court excluded impeachment evidence based on the identified misdemeanor convictions because they did not qualify as impeachment-by-conviction for truthfulness under Rule 609 and had limited probative value on credibility.
- The court excluded evidence of the witnesses’ evictions by other landlords, concluding it amounted to improper character evidence (casting witnesses as “bad tenants”) and would invite collateral disputes outweighing any limited value.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a), evidence of a person’s character or character trait is generally inadmissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion; civil litigants typically may not use broad “good character” evidence to prove nonliability.
- Rule 405 limits methods of proving character and generally does not permit character proof by specific acts unless character is an element of a claim or defense.
- Under Rule 609, impeachment by prior conviction is limited to (a) certain felony convictions (subject to balancing) and (b) convictions requiring proof of a dishonest act or false statement; misdemeanors lacking those elements are generally not admissible for credibility impeachment.
- Rule 608(b) permits, at most, limited inquiry on cross-examination into specific acts only if they are probative of truthfulness; it bars extrinsic evidence offered solely to attack a witness’s character for truthfulness.
- Rule 404(b) does not permit “other acts” evidence when its real function is propensity reasoning (e.g., suggesting a witness is a bad tenant and therefore not credible), even if recast as “plan” or “motive.”
- Rule 403 permits exclusion when probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time, including the risk of side trials over unrelated conduct.

## Conclusion

In this FHA sex-discrimination enforcement action, the district court granted the government’s motion in limine, preventing the defendants from presenting broad good-character evidence, from impeaching tenant-witnesses with unrelated misdemeanor convictions not tied to dishonesty, and from introducing other-landlord eviction evidence that mainly suggested propensity and threatened to sidetrack the trial.


United States v. Peterson, 2010 WL 2992367 (2010)