Trial Tactics: Reverse Rule 404(B) Evidence: Parts I and Ii

7 Pages Posted: 25 Aug 2006

See all articles by Stephen A. Saltzburg

Stephen A. Saltzburg

George Washington University School of Law

Abstract

Defendants have the same right to offer Rule 404(b) evidence as prosecutors, and they are not required to give pretrial notice under the Federal Rules of Evidence. When defendants offer this evidence, they attempt to prove that someone else is guilty of the crime attributed to them. This often is referred to as reverse Rule 404(b) evidence. Some defense evidence will be admitted - indeed the Confrontation Clause or Compulsory Process Clause may require admission in some cases - but not all defense evidence will be admitted. The issue is where to draw the line between admissible and inadmissible evidence. Two recent cases help to provide an answer. In United States v. Montelongo the court held that the defendant had a constitutional right to explore another person's possible guilt. In United States v. Seals, the court found that the evidence was irrelevant and appropriately excluded.

Keywords: Evidence, Reverse Rule 404(b) evidence, Confrontation Clause, Compulsory Process Clause, criminal law, Montelongo, Seals

JEL Classification: K14, K41

Suggested Citation

Saltzburg, Stephen A., Trial Tactics: Reverse Rule 404(B) Evidence: Parts I and Ii. Criminal Justice, Vol. 20, Spring & Summer 2006, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 215, GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 215, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=925975

Stephen A. Saltzburg (Contact Author)

George Washington University School of Law ( email )

2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States
202-994-7089 (Phone)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
330
Abstract Views
3,120
Rank
167,196
PlumX Metrics