when character functions as evidence
The recent conviction of former WorldCom Chief Executive Bernard J. Ebbers offers an interesting insight into how character - or perhaps personality - can not only color our perceptions of evidence, but can also become evidence on its own.
According to the Wall Street Journal, jurors believed neither Mr. Ebbers nor key prosecution witness Scott Sullivan (who so obviously exchanged his testimony for a lower sentence in his own case):
"[Ebbers] was the man who was in charge. It's just kind of hard to sit there and think he didn't know what was going on," said Vincent Wright, juror No. 7. (As quoted in the Wall Street Journal.)
Read that carefully. The juror did not say: The evidence proved Ebbers guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He said: It is hard to believe he did not do it, because of who he is. Ebbers, after all, was a notorious micro-manager. That much was proved at trial.
This is especially important when you know the government had no direct evidence: no emails (Ebbers never used email); no letters; no taped conversations. All they had was a common-sense notion of what a CEO ought to know, and the word of a not-terribly-reliable snitch.
Which is not to say the government lacked plenty of good circumstantial evidence. Or that the jurors were wrong. Heck, I always thought Ebbers was guilty, too.
My point here is simply that character and evidence can sometimes be one and the same.
Of course, this carries its own dangers. I will return to this issue later, looking at a series of cases where this changed & failed to change jury decisions.