Facts
- Dwayne Scheuermann was charged with crimes connected to the burning of Henry Glover under the color of law enforcement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
- During trial, Scheuermann sought to introduce character evidence in the form of photographs showing him helping non–law-enforcement residents and performing other rescue activities immediately after the hurricane.
- The government objected to admission of the photographs.
- The dispute focused on whether the photos were admissible character evidence (and, if so, the proper method of proving character) as opposed to inadmissible proof of specific good acts offered to suggest Scheuermann acted lawfully on the charged occasion.
Issues
- In a criminal prosecution, may a defendant introduce photographs of prior rescue and assistance activities as character evidence to show he likely did not commit the charged misconduct?
Decision
- The court sustained the government’s objection and excluded the photographs.
- The court treated the photos as proof of specific instances of conduct offered to show good character, which is generally not an allowed method of proving character when character is offered only to show action in conformity on a particular occasion.
- To the extent the defendant wished to present favorable character evidence, the proper forms were reputation or opinion testimony (subject to the rules of evidence), not a collection of images depicting selected past good deeds.
Legal Principles
- Character evidence offered to prove that a person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion is generally barred, subject to limited exceptions for a criminal defendant’s presentation of a character trait.
- When a criminal defendant offers character evidence, the usual methods of proof are reputation or opinion testimony; proof by specific instances of conduct is restricted and is typically reserved for situations where character is itself an element of a claim or defense.
- Even where evidence has some probative value, a court may exclude it if its limited value is substantially outweighed by risks such as confusing the issues, wasting time, or inviting a “mini-trial” over collateral matters.
Conclusion
In United States v. Warren, the court refused to admit photographs of the defendant’s post–Hurricane Katrina rescue work because the images functioned as specific-act proof offered to show good character and, by inference, lawful conduct on the charged occasion; the court therefore sustained the government’s objection and kept the photos from the jury.