Under what circumstance can good reputation evidence for truthfulness be used in rehabilitation?

Good reputation evidence for truthfulness can be used in rehabilitation specifically following an attack on the witness's general character for truthfulness because it serves to counter the negative assertions made against the witness. When a witness's credibility is challenged, such as through questioning that suggests their character is not sufficiently truthful, the opposing party is then allowed to introduce evidence of the witness's good reputation for truthfulness to rehabilitate their credibility. This process allows the jury to weigh the witness's overall character more fairly, providing insight into their reliability.

In contrast, the other circumstances mentioned do not align with the established rules of evidence regarding the use of reputation evidence. For instance, while suggesting bias is relevant to witness credibility, it does not directly allow for introducing character evidence of truthfulness. Additionally, while direct examination allows for the introduction of character evidence, it must specifically follow an attack on the witness's character for truthfulness to serve its rehabilitative purpose. Lastly, any introduction of such evidence is based on the context of prior attacks rather than a request from the court, making that choice less applicable in this context.