Habit and Custom Cases

489 Words2 Pages
1. US v. Lutrell The standard for proving habit or custom is that there are numerous instances of the defendant’s failure to file income taxes for 4 years. The defendant, however, states that he filed his taxes on time in 1970 and filed his 1973 return late, but did file. The defendants’ habits that were introduced was that the defendant failed to file his income taxes for the years 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975. FRE 406 states that evidence of a person’s habit may be admitted to prove that the person acted in accordance with his habit or routine practice. In this case, it was the defendant’s habit of not filing income tax for four different years. It was also his habit that when he did file his income taxes, they were filed late. To distinguish habit from character in this case, his routine practice was not to file his income taxes. His character might have been that he was not an honest person and that maybe he was lazy. 2. Perrin v. Anderson The standard for proving habit in this case is that there are numerous instances of Perrin becoming violent when he came in contact with the police officers. Perrin’s habits were that he would become violent with every encounter he had with a police officer. Perrin’s habit and character were closely akin. FRE 406 says that a habit of a person, whether or not corroborated or witnessed is relevant to prove that the conduct of a person on a particular occasion was in conformity with the person’s routine practice. To distinguish habit from character in this case, his habit was witnessed by 8 officers as being violent when confronted by them. His character was that he had a reputation of being fearful of the police. Additionally, Officer Anderson formed the opinion that he was going to kill him, based on his character; how he was acting. 3. U.S. v. Newman The standard for proving habit in this case is

More about Habit and Custom Cases

Open Document