United States v. Keiser
57 F.3d 847 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 405, a victim's character trait for violence is not an essential element of a self-defense claim, and therefore, it may only be proven by reputation or opinion testimony, not by evidence of specific instances of conduct.
Facts:
- A raucous, late-night party with drinking took place at a home across the street from Ronald Reiser's residence on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation.
- Reiser went to the party to complain about the noise, which resulted in several arguments and a physical scuffle where Reiser pulled a guest's hair.
- Reiser returned to his home upset. His brother, Randy Reiser, was called to come calm him down.
- Victor Romero, whose sister Reiser had allegedly slapped during the earlier scuffle, arrived at the party angry.
- Romero and two companions went across the street, where they encountered Randy Reiser warming up his truck.
- Mistaking Randy for Ronald, Romero began assaulting Randy while he was sitting in the driver's seat of his truck.
- Watching from his house, Ronald Reiser testified that he saw one of Romero's companions retrieve what he believed was a gun from another car and approach his brother.
- Believing his brother was about to be killed, Ronald Reiser retrieved a rifle and shot at the group, striking and paralyzing Victor Romero.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Reiser was indicted in the U.S. District Court for assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
- At trial, Reiser asserted that he acted in defense of his brother.
- The district court excluded testimony about an incident where the victim, Victor Romero, allegedly threatened Reiser's brother outside the courtroom during the trial.
- The trial judge rejected Reiser's proposed jury instruction on defense of another and instead gave the Ninth Circuit's model jury instruction.
- A jury convicted Reiser of the assault charge.
- Reiser, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the evidentiary ruling and the jury instruction. The U.S. government was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(b), is a victim's violent character an 'essential element' of a defendant's claim of self-defense, thereby permitting proof through specific instances of the victim's conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Hall
No, a victim's violent character is not an essential element of a self-defense claim, and thus proof of that character is limited to reputation or opinion evidence. The court analyzed the issue under the Federal Rules of Evidence in two steps. First, under Rule 404(a)(2), evidence of a victim's pertinent character trait (like violence) is relevant and admissible to support an inference that the victim was the aggressor, regardless of whether the defendant knew of the victim's character at the time. Second, under Rule 405, which dictates the form of character evidence, specific instances of conduct are only admissible if the character trait is an 'essential element' of the defense. The court determined that a victim's violent character is not an essential element because a self-defense claim does not rise or fall on proof of that trait; a defendant could still succeed in a self-defense claim against a peaceful person if the defendant's belief of imminent harm was reasonable. Because Romero's violent character was not an essential element, the specific act of his courtroom outburst was properly excluded, and only reputation or opinion evidence would have been admissible.
Analysis:
This case establishes a key precedent in the Ninth Circuit for how character evidence can be used in self-defense cases. It clarifies the distinction between the admissibility of victim character evidence under FRE 404(a)(2) and the permissible methods of proving it under FRE 405. By holding that a victim's violent disposition is not an 'essential element' of self-defense, the court prevents trials from devolving into mini-trials about the victim's past conduct. This ruling standardizes the approach, limiting proof to less prejudicial and less time-consuming reputation and opinion evidence, thereby focusing the jury's attention on the specific events of the incident in question.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Keiser