Hacker News Reader

Comment by haberman | Hacker News Reader

That is exactly the kind of insinuation that evidence rules are designed to protect against (in my layman's understanding of the law). From Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 404 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404)

"Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait."

View on HN

I can't comment on the legal accuracy of that interpretation of the law, but as someone who has performed jury duty on a number of occasions I can say that whatever the letter of the law, character assassination, in lieu of objective evidence, is common and very routine.

Your jury duty experience was different than mine then. I sat on a criminal trial where we were told almost nothing about the numerous past convictions of the defendant, the fact that he beat his girlfriend, or the fact that the trial's key witness had been beaten shortly before the trial began in an apparent effort to prevent her testimony. I learned about all these things only when the trial was over. The judge even threw out a recorded phone call that the defendant placed from prison because it repeated some boilerplate disclaimers about the call being from a prison inmate.

My jury experience led me to believe that evidence rules are very stringently applied.

It seems to me you are comparing apples to oranges: Criminal charges are not the same as a civil suit (i.e. "being sued"). It is why I opted to not put in my two cents: I think my experience probably doesn't apply.

They're not the same, but it appears that evidence rules apply to both. In particular, the Federal Rules of Evidence that I cited applies to both, according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Evidence

Thanks. I did upvote you earlier.

My experience with this: I worked at an insurance company for five years. A lot of what we did was driven by questions of what would hold up in a court of law if we got sued. Generally speaking, proving someone was an alcoholic had no bearing on the decision (there were exceptions: some policies had odd language driving those exceptions).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com