Could a prosecutor hint the jury about past dismissed cases?

Question

In Can you present a clear record if you do Driver Safety Course in Texas?, it was determined that after taking a Driving Safety Course, a record of such action is placed upon one's driving record.

Taking the course in Texas could be for either dismissing a ticket, or for obtaining an insurance discount.

If one has a jury trial for speeding, and claims to have a spotless driving record (which happens to show the course), would the prosecutor be allowed to contradict such statement, and, either directly or indirectly, inform the jury that the record may or may not be clean?

(Additionally, would the driving record itself has to be shown to the jury? Could they ask what the presence of the course means? Jury selection itself would be a separate question.)

Answer 1

One wouldn't be able to make a claim about a driving record without it being testimony. Testimony will be challenged during cross examination.

The prosecutor won't be able to bring up prior bad acts (such as previous speeding tickets) but will most certainly be allowed to rebut any claim of no prior bad acts made by a defendant.

When the defendant claims a spotless driving record the defendant is introducing character or a character trait into the trial. Once introduced by the defendant the prosecutor will be allowed to challenge the credibility of that statement and, therefore, the credibility of the witness.

Imagine the following interaction:

• Defendant: I have a spotless driving record.
• Prosecutor: Are you saying you've never been issued a traffic ticket?
• Defendant: Um, Uh, well...

When a defendant goes to court they are facing a specific charge. The prosecutor will present evidence that supports that charge and it is up to the defendant and his attorneys to sow reasonable doubt within the jury, or at least one juror.

By presenting character, the defendant may appear to be saying either, "Hey, it was my first time let me off," or, "I've never done it before so I couldn't have done it this time." Either way, it probably won't create reasonable doubt in the juror's mind about the specific charge they're weighing and it has the potential to open a can of worms that would be unfavorable to the defendant.

Answer 2

The prosecutor may not offer evidence of you being merely arrested or issued a ticket.

This answer is based on the federal rules of evidence and depending on how similar they are to the Texas rules you may or may not prevail.

To address some additional concerns, let's delve into a segment on the rules and procedure in a courtroom. Your past criminal record and bad acts are generally inadmissible. The exception to this rule is if you decide to testify as a defendant. In that case, the prosecutor may decide to impeach your credibility by introducing evidence that you have committed crimes in the past: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_609

Since this is a traffic violation and we do not sentence traffic violators to significant terms in jail, the prosecutor cannot introduce any evidence about your criminal records at all, unless you open the door.

However, you have indicated you wanted to tell the jury that you have a clean driving record. The only way you can introduce this evidence, is to testify to it. You have to take the witness stand and tell the jury that you have never been convicted of driving violation. Because you want to take the stand in this case, you have to waive your right against self incrimination. Allowing you to only answer the question you want to answer would violate the concept of fundamental fairness in a court proceeding.

Now let's say you take the stand and testify that you have a spotless record. After you're done saying what you want to say, the prosecutor would get a chance to cross examine you. He could delve in to the specifics of your record. He could ask you about your driving course. He could ask about whether you had to take it. So on, and so forth.

Now assuming you have never plead guilty or no contest to a traffic violation. Nor were you ever convicted.

Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

Rule 403 bars the admission of evidence which is substantially more prejudicial than it is probable. Evidence of simply being issued a ticket prejudices the jury against the defendant. As a society, we have a tendency to believe somebody committed a crime, even if they were not convicted. Ie. we say "he or she got off".

The jury will automatically think the defendant is guilty even though the defendant was never convicted. In the eyes of the law, if you were never convicted you are innocent. If evidence of being issued a summons were introduced it would inflame the passions of the jury and prevent the jury from rationally reaching a verdict.

For the aforementioned reasons the evidence of being issued a ticket, but no conviction is inadmissible.

Just a word of caution, trial court judges are given great latitude in their rulings on evidence. Additionally, if a trial judge rules this evidence admissible and you're convicted it is possible it could be construed as harmless error on appeal. Additionally, an appeal will most likely be more expensive than the fines you end up paying. Lastly, factor the possibility in the denial and weigh how critical a spotless record is for your defense.

My suggestion is to try to make a motion to suppress any mention of being issued a ticket and never being convicted in pretrial so the jury doesn't see you objecting to your record.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Contact a lawyer for legal advice and representation.

Answer 3

Simply ask the judge "what's the nature and cause of the accusation" meaning if you haven't harmed anyone, there is no crime. There are Three parts to an action against a person 1. There must be a claim entered. 2. There must be an injured party. 3. There must be an affidavit from the injured party.