What is a common misconception about character evidence in legal proceedings?

Character evidence is often misunderstood in legal contexts, particularly regarding its relevance to a case. While it may seem intuitive that character evidence is relevant, the legal framework, particularly under the Federal Rules of Evidence, places strict limitations on the admissibility of such evidence to prevent unfair prejudice.

In most situations, character evidence is not admissible to prove a person's conduct on a particular occasion. This means that the character traits of a party cannot simply be introduced to argue that they acted in accordance with those traits during the specific incident in question. The relevance of character evidence is, therefore, not absolute. Courts require a careful consideration of whether this evidence serves a purpose beyond just speaking to a person's general character, often only allowing such evidence in very specific circumstances, such as in cases involving a person's character in a way that is directly pertinent to the matter at hand.

Understanding this concept clarifies why asserting that character evidence is always relevant can be misleading. It becomes clear that while character might play a role in legal assessments, that role is significantly constrained to prevent bias and to maintain the integrity of judicial proceedings.