Character evidence is proof about a person's general disposition — honesty, violence, carefulness — offered to suggest they acted in conformity with that trait on a specific occasion at issue in the case. The general rule excludes this kind of propensity reasoning because it risks a jury deciding a case based on who someone is rather than what actually happened, and because it can unfairly prejudice a party regardless of the truth.

Exceptions exist in specific contexts: a witness's character for truthfulness is fair game once their credibility is at issue, a criminal defendant may sometimes open the door to their own character, and habit evidence describing a person's routine, near-automatic practice is treated differently from character evidence and is often admissible to show conduct on a particular occasion. Evidence of other acts, such as prior bad conduct, is likewise generally barred to show propensity but may be admissible for other purposes like motive, intent, or absence of mistake.

Juricratic keeps credibility assessments and character-adjacent signals in the reasoning layer of a simulated matter, clearly distinguished from observed facts, so a simulated case cannot silently let a party's general reputation stand in for actual proof of what happened on the occasion at issue.

Litigators screen proposed evidence for character or propensity problems before offering it, and object when an opposing party tries to use general reputation or past conduct to suggest a party acted a certain way on the occasion in dispute. Recognizing where a genuine exception applies — habit evidence, impeachment of credibility, a permitted other-purpose use — lets counsel introduce otherwise-barred material the right way.