Legal Definitions - MIMIC Rule

The MIMIC Rule refers to a principle in evidence law, specifically under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It stands for:

• Motive
• Intent
• Mistake (absence of)
• Identity
• Common scheme or plan

In legal proceedings, evidence of a defendant's past misconduct or prior crimes is generally not allowed if its only purpose is to suggest that the defendant is a "bad person" or has a general tendency to commit crimes. This is because such evidence can unfairly prejudice a jury.

However, the MIMIC Rule provides specific, limited exceptions. It allows evidence of past bad acts to be admitted if it serves a relevant purpose *other than* simply showing a defendant's criminal disposition. The "MIMIC" acronym helps identify these permissible purposes. If the evidence helps prove the defendant's motive, intent, the absence of mistake, the defendant's identity, or a common scheme or plan, then it may be admitted.

Examples:

• Example 1 (Motive): Imagine a former employee is on trial for stealing sensitive customer data from their previous company. The prosecution might seek to introduce evidence that the employee had recently incurred significant personal debts and was about to be laid off from their new job. This evidence would not be used to argue that the employee is generally dishonest, but rather to establish a clear motive for the theft of the data – a financial incentive to sell the information or use it to secure new employment. This helps the jury understand *why* the defendant might have committed the crime.

• Example 2 (Intent / Absence of Mistake): Consider a case where a defendant is accused of selling counterfeit designer handbags. The defendant claims they genuinely believed the bags were authentic and that it was an honest mistake. The prosecution might then introduce evidence that the defendant had previously been caught selling similar counterfeit items, received a warning, and even attended a workshop on identifying fake goods. This evidence wouldn't be used to say the defendant is a habitual criminal, but to demonstrate that they acted with intent to sell counterfeit goods in the current instance and that their actions were not an innocent mistake.

• Example 3 (Identity / Common Scheme or Plan): Suppose a series of high-end jewelry store robberies have occurred, all involving a distinctive method: disabling the alarm system by cutting a specific wire, leaving a single, unique playing card at the scene, and only targeting specific types of antique watches. A defendant is apprehended near the scene of the latest robbery. Evidence of the defendant's prior conviction for a similar jewelry store robbery, which involved the exact same alarm disabling technique, the same playing card, and the same target items, could be admitted. This evidence helps establish the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the current robberies and shows a distinctive common scheme or plan, rather than merely suggesting the defendant is a general thief.