About the Course
Introduction
This CLE course will guide personal injury lawyers through the benefits and risks of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (and its state counterparts) in personal injury cases, exploring what the evidence in FRE 404(b) includes and what it does not, a subtle distinction; how to uncover prior bad acts or incidents; how to get that evidence admitted and best strategies for excluding it; and how to avoid not overlooking the usefulness of this rule in personal injury cases.
Description
Evidence of prior bad acts admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) can be very close to the proverbial silver bullet for personal injury attorneys in many cases, such as trucking, premises liability, negligence, intentional torts, and product liability. It has also carried the day in civil lawsuits alleging antitrust violations, securities fraud, trade secret misappropriation, and construction defects. This type of evidence can tip the scales on both liability and damages, including punitive damages.
Such evidence can be devasting to the person and case against whom it is offered. It can be a gateway to the jury for otherwise inadmissible evidence. If a plaintiff is aware of such evidence, counsel can draft the complaint to ensure similar acts will come into evidence. The defendant can do the likewise in its answer. But counsel must be well versed in what is not implicated by FRE 404(b) and thus admissible in its own right.
Counsel must understand the proper procedures for getting 404(b) evidence admitted and for excluding it. Courts are well aware of attempts to introduce inadmissible evidence and may be quick to exclude evidence that only becomes relevant and probative through inferences that the party against whom it is admitted acted in conformity with whatever the evidence of the prior act says about their character.
Listen as this experienced panel explores how this underutilized rule can be a powerful tool in personal injury cases.
Presented By
Named as one of America's top 100 attorneys for three years in a row, Mr. Blitz is a highly experienced lawyer known for effectively managing complex, high-profile negligence cases. His success in resolving cases through arbitration, mediation, courtroom negotiation, and trial underscores his reputation as a fierce trial attorney and skilled negotiator. Mr. Blitz has been ranked in the Top 10 personal injury lawyers in New York for five years straight, law firms nationwide recognize him as the go-to trial attorney, seeking his expertise for their most severe injury cases, relying on his exceptional track record and verdict results. He has taken over 200 verdicts in his career, with over 50 million collected in recovery for his clients.
Mr. Kiniry is engaged in a broad-based litigation practice focused on product liability, medical malpractice, internal investigations and regulatory compliance. He has first chair trial experience with automotive product liability litigation, particularly warranty litigation where he has appeared in nearly every court in the State of Maryland. Mr. Kiniry's practice is centered on the preparation, trial, and appeal of civil litigation cases, including conducting internal investigations in reconstructing and explicating the “company story” with respect to involvement with legacy products such as asbestos; responding to and conducting discovery in mass tort (asbestos) litigation; the representation of a major health care system and its practitioners in a variety of contexts; representation of major pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as manufacturers and distributors of automobiles and heavy construction equipment.
-
This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.
-
Date + Time
- event
Wednesday, June 24, 2026
- schedule
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
I. What evidence FRE 404(b) covers
II. What evidence is never implicated by FRE 404(b)
III. Admissibility
A. Proper evidentiary purpose
B. Relevant
C. Probative value vs. prejudice
D. Proper limiting instruction
IV. Application in different types of cases
The panel will review these and other pressing issues:
- What standard should be applied when reviewing Rule 404(b) proper purpose determinations?
- Do the rules governing the admissibility of character evidence apply to corporations or other entities?
- What does it mean that Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion rather than exclusion?
- What is "reverse" FRE 404(b) evidence?
- What objections can be expected?
Related Courses
IPO Tax Due Diligence: Identifying Risks, Managing Compliance, and ASC 740 Readiness
Tuesday, August 4, 2026
1:00 p.m. ET/10:00 a.m. PT
Financeable Ground Leases: Landlord, Tenant, and Lender Basics
Thursday, June 18, 2026
1:00 PM ET/10:00 AM PT
