United States v. Peterson
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
2010 WL 2992367 (2010)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The government (plaintiff) filed suit against Ronald Peterson and his property-management company (defendants), claiming sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The government sought to prove its claim through testimony of multiple former tenants of Peterson. The government filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the following evidence proffered by Peterson: (1) evidence of Peterson’s good character; (2) evidence that certain of the governments’ witnesses had prior misdemeanor convictions for assault, driving while on a suspended license, carrying a concealed weapon, and malicious use of a telephone, all in order to attack the witnesses’ character for truthfulness; and (3) evidence that certain of the government’s witnesses had been evicted by landlords other than Peterson. The government argued that such eviction evidence would merely be improper character evidence that the witnesses had a propensity to be bad tenants. Peterson claimed that the evidence was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to prove that the witnesses had a common scheme of avoiding paying rent and a motive—to avoid paying rent—for bringing discrimination claims against landlords.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cook, Jr., J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.