No. The fact that Anthony is in his mid 50s and has no priors speaks volumes about his character.

The ability to introduce character witnesses is the domain of the defense. But, once the defense opens the door, the prosecution can bring forth "negative" character witnesses to counter. So, a good defense tactic would be to not offer a character witness unless absolutely necessary.

In the end, Anthony's non-existent criminal record is all the Judge will care about.

I do anticipate all charges being reduced and Anthony being given community service/rehab.

are you all retarded? his case is not going to go to trial. what the fuck are you people babbling about character witnesses for

No. If Ant does that then he opens up character as an issue and the prosecution can just start playing clips from the show out of context to prove Ant is an evil piece of shit. The prosecution can't do that if Zits doesn't make character an issue.

Not exactly. The prosecution can begin to offer character evidence that is limited to the character evidence the defense produced.

The defense would limit the evidence to "Anthony doesn't abuse women" - there is very little character evidence that proves the contrary.

Even if the prosecutor tried to introduce O&A clips, Anthony's attorney would object on the grounds that Anthony is a "character" for a radio show. It's a strong argument that could succeed.

This is a really interesting issue, actually. Anthony's said a lot of really shitty stuff on his show. First of all, I'm not sure that the DA could be bothered to unearth those nuggets (I guess maybe they could have a winter break extern go though all the youtube clips. Poor kid.) Even if they did, though, how would they authenticate the audio? I think they'd probably have to subpoena the tapes from Sirius/XM. That's a major pain in the ass.

And then, of course, the DA faces the "it was a bit" argument that you're raising. I'm inclined to think that that goes to weight; let Ant explain the context for the statements that he made. It's not like he was playing a role in a movie or a television show. He was a personality, appearing as himself, on a radio show (which, as we all know, is "above all else... r-r-r-REAAALLLLLLLL"). He's broadcasting as Anthony Cumia. Let him explain to the jury how he exaggerates his persona for the air.

[deleted]

It's an interesting scenario. Hypothetically speaking:

Let's say Anthony introduces character witnesses/evidence that aims to prove he would never hit a woman. Then, the DA counters with the audio from O&A where the guys are laughing at The Golden Age of Broad Smacking (this audio really happened.)

Anthony's attorney would argue that it was a radio bit "meant to shock" and that Anthony doesn't truly find hitting women funny.

Your point is valid; Anthony isn't a scripted actor. How much of O&A is his on-air persona vs. his real life personality?

I tend to think that the Judge would rule it an act, only because there is a distinction between Anthony and, say, Sean Hannity. Anthony is a "shock jock," while Sean Hannity is a news pundit. One is there for humorous purposes, the other is there to report the news.

It would be cool to watch that debate unfold in the courthouse.

I totally get the argument, and I respect it. If I were the judge, though, I think I'd rule against it. I assume that the ground for exclusion would be irrelevance; "Anthony Cumia is playing a character on his show, and therefore anything that he says -- in character -- on his show is not relevant to his character outside of the show."

I just don't buy that argument, or at the very least I don't think it's clear enough to exclude the evidence entirely. I mean does Ant's attorney want me to hold, as a matter of law, that his on-air performance is schtick (and that any statements that he made during the show don't tend to prove or disprove any facts at issue)? That's farther than I'm willing to go, and I don't think it's the judge's place to determine stuff like that. How do you determine whether someone's doing a bit for the air as a matter of law? What are the factors or elements? I think the argument that he's puffing up his persona for the air is comprehensible and it has a reasonable basis. It's also self-serving and inherently unprovable. I'm not going to keep the testimony completely out of the record under these circumstances. The issue boils down to a credibility assessment; is Ant telling the truth to the extent that he claims that he exaggerates his persona for the air? Credibility is for the jury. Let the jury sort it out.

If he were playing Hamlet or some shit and he were reading lines out of a script, that's different -- it's demonstrably clear that he's playing a character that's been written clear lines that aren't his. Even if he were Daniel Whitney playing Larry the Cable Guy, that's a character that's pretty distinctly separate from Dan Whitney himself. I'd still want some hefty briefing on the subject, but I could see myself excluding statements Dan Whitney made in character. Ant is holding himself out to the public as a person speaking on the radio as himself, and if there's no clear evidence indicating otherwise, I'm not keeping that out. I think he's closer to Hannity than you seem to think. He's a "pundit," of sorts, giving his take on issues and riffing on the air, just like Hannity. Maybe he (like Hannity, or anyone else) "pumps it up for the air," but I'm not willing to take his word for that and keep his prior statements out of the record if he's opened the door. Again, let him explain his schtick to the jury.

For real though, I 'd love to read the briefing on this issue if it comes up. I think that this is probably just going to be plea bargained out, but if it goes to trial and they start drafting up MILs and shit then it's going to be fascinating.

No.

Yes.

Specifically this section:

In the United States, character evidence is inadmissible in a criminal trial if first offered by the prosecution as circumstantial evidence to show that a defendant is likely to have committed the crime with which he or she is charged—the prosecution may not, in other words, initiate character evidence that shows defendant's propensity to commit a crime. However the prosecution may introduce character evidence for certain limited purposes after the defendant does so—after the defendant has "opened the door"—through the permissible methods and purposes explained below in "Character evidence offered by the defendant," to rebut what defendant tried showing through character evidence, and to "offer evidence of the defendant's same trait."

Even more specifically, New York's statue provides:

60.40 Rules of evidence; proof of previous conviction; when allowed.

1. If in the course of a criminal proceeding, any witness, including a defendant, is properly asked whether he was previously convicted of a specified offense and answers in the negative or in an equivocal manner, the party adverse to the one who called him may independently prove such conviction. If in response to proper inquiry whether he has ever been convicted of any offense the witness answers in the negative or in an equivocal manner, the adverse party may independently prove any previous conviction of the witness.

2. If a defendant in a criminal proceeding, through the testimony of a witness called by him, offers evidence of his good character, the people may independently prove any previous conviction of the defendant for an offense the commission of which would tend to negate any character trait or quality attributed to the defendant in such witness' testimony.

3. Subject to the limitations prescribed in section 200.60, the people may prove that a defendant has been previously convicted of an offense when the fact of such previous conviction constitutes an element of the offense charged, or proof thereof is otherwise essential to the establishment of a legally sufficient case.

So even in New York state court it's the same basic "door-opening" idea.

1. Subsection 1 says that if any witness is properly asked whether the Defendant has been convicted of a prior offense (which implies that the question was relevant to whoever testified about it), that opens the door and the DA can rebut.
2. Subsection 2 says that if the Defendant introduced evidence of his good character, the DA can rebut.
3. Subsection 3 says the DA can introduce evidence of prior convictions if they're a necessary element of the offense charged (which doesn't apply to Ant's case).

Exactly. I explained it at length in a comment above. NY has (mostly) adopted the FRE, but it has done so through the common law and sparse codification.

The defendant must open the door to character evidence. If he doesn't, the prosecution must prove the "prior acts" aren't character evidence - but are proof of motive, opportunity, intent, prep, planning, forethought, modus operandi, etc. None of these apply to Anthony's case.

You're citing federal law as written on wikipedia instead of the New York State Rules of Evidence.

Kill yourself.

Commentary on Federal Law 404 and NY Rule Differences:

Federal Rule 404 governs the admissibility of character evidence. In general, the rule bans evidence of a person's character when offered to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. While there is no analogous NY Statute, NY common law as a general matter bans evidence of character when offered to prove action in conformity therewith, except:

1) When first offered by the accused - The prosecution cannot initiate the use of evidence of the accused's character, but may only introduce evidence to rebut the same when the accused first introduces evidence of his own character.

2) Sexual Abuse Cases - the accused can attack the victim's character first.

3) Proving Accused MO - A prosecutor can offer past acts/character evidence to prove that the accused does this specific act, repeatedly. It isn't a general thing like "hitting people." It would be, "He uses a 4 iron, made by Calloway, and strikes people in their temples, before making an escape."

NY Common Law makes it clear that the ban on character evidence extends to indirect evidence of a person's character, as well - by offering evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to prove the character of a person.

However, evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts may be admissible when offered for some other purpose other than to prove the character of a person. This is interpreted to prove the accused's motive, opportunity, intent, identity or preparation for the crime - not his guilt or his propensity to commit such acts.

Anthony's case doesn't require the DA to prove motive, intent, prep or forethought. Therefore, this evidence would be barred - unless Anthony opened the door.

Citation: Nicolas, Peters. NY & Federal Evidence Rules. Aspen Publishers 2013.

More relevant NY Law:

"Whether the defendant's character will become an issue in the trial is the defendant's option, for until he introduces evidence of good character the People are precluded from showing that it is otherwise" (People v Kuss, 32 N.Y.2d 436, 443, cert denied 415 U.S. 913)

People v. Jones 717 NYS 2d 270: "The Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the fiancée about the defendant's previous convictions. Although such cross-examination may be permissible if the defendant "opens the door" by offering evidence which tends to mislead the jury, in this case, the Supreme Court's ruling permitted the People to "`open the door' and then step through it"

I cited Federal Law because a) NY common law virtually adopted 80% of it and b) there is no real codification of NY evidence laws, it is set by case law.

Lastly, absolutely nowhere does your version of NY evidence appear in my treatise nor does it appear in the case law. Dolt.

1) When first offered by the accused - The prosecution cannot initiate the use of evidence of the accused's character, but may only introduce evidence to rebut the same when the accused first introduces evidence of his own character.

Therefore, this evidence would be barred - unless Anthony opened the door.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I wrote, fucktard.

there is no real codification of NY evidence laws, it is set by case law.

http://ypdcrime.com/cpl/article60.htm

Google better, dipshit.

I don't have the time to teach you how to read. It was literally in the first two lines of what I was quoting from a legal treatise.

Federal Rule 404 governs the admissibility of character evidence. In general, the rule bans evidence of a person's character when offered to prove action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. While there is no analogous NY Statute, NY common law as a general matter bans evidence of character when offered to prove action in conformity therewith.

Again, While there is no analogous NY Statute, NY common law as a general matter bans evidence of character when offered to prove action in conformity therewith.

Article 60, which you cited to, allows the prosecutor to attack the credibility of the character witness by introducing evidence of the defendant's prior crimes that would tend to negate the testimony of the witness.

That means if the witness says, "He was a really good father and was always generous" the prosecutor cannot offer evidence that he was convicted of larceny - because it has nothing to do with the type of character evidence introduced by the witness. He could, however, introduce evidence that the defendant was convicted of child abuse.

That info isn't coming from me, its coming from a legal treatise on the differences between NY and Federal law...which are few and far between.

In Anthony's case, the NY rules and the Federal rules are one in the same. Article 60, that you cited, is nearly word-for-word FRE 404. So, I was completely justified in citing to the FRE in my initial comment to you.

Brush up on your reading skills.

Lol, crimen falsi are always admissible after a witness testifies. Good luck on your second year at Thomas Cooley School of Law.

Were you educated in a Common Core state? Because your reading skills are severely lacking.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Crimen falsi deals solely with the witnesses and their prior acts. We've been discussing a defendant and his prior acts. In NY, witnesses are impeachable and their prior acts are fair game (provided the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect) because their liberty isn't at stake. The standard is entirely different for a defendant.

If a witness is entirely reputable and is offering character evidence ("The defendant would never steal. He is an honest person") the prosecutor can offer evidence of the defendant's bad acts to rebut that specific evidence, only.

The prosecutor doesn't have carte blanche to bring up every single bad act the defendant was involved in. So, the prosecutor can offer evidence of the defendant being convicted of tax fraud. He cannot offer evidence of the defendant being convicted of drunk driving.

I went to a Tier - 2 law school in New York. During that time, I had internships in three criminal courts (2 in NYC, 1 in LI). I passed the NY Bar on my first attempt. I've been admitted for the last 5+ years and have practiced continuously.

Good luck on your LSATS.

Lol, you're a retard. Enjoy drafting wills for your career.

It'll be like the last episode of Seinfeld and he'll hang himself in his cell.

Buckle up, gang!

What's your story, character?