Problem

 

The State of Greenacre indicts Officer Orland Olbert, an African-American police officer, for unlawful and excessive use of force against Wheeler Whitman. The indictment charges that Orland Olbert shot WW without adequate cause. Orland Olbert’s defense is that he shot Wheeler Whitman in self-defense.

At the trial Orland Olbert’s counsel offers the following testimony by John Jackson:

Wheeler Whitman and I are lifelong friends. He and I grew up in Mississippi together. We were country boys. Maybe that’s why we hated Blacks, which we did. In any case, about ten years ago both of us ended up in the same penitentiary. We got there the same day. And when we got there, we decided to join the Christian Aryan Brotherhood. That’s a prison gang. When we joined the Christian Aryan Brotherhood, we swore to restore the power of White Christianity in the United States. We took our vows seriously. You might even say we took them religiously. That’s why Wheeler and I shot Clay Crawford in 2002. Clay Crawford was Black. Now Clay Crawford may have been a Christian; I dunno if he was or wasn’t. But if he was a Christian, he wasn’t a White Christian. Wheeler and I didn’t swear to restore the power of Christians. We swore to put White Christianity back in the saddle. Anyway, as you can see, Wheeler is a cunning and dangerous man. So am I. We will stop at nothing to restore the authority of White Christianity. So help me God!

If the testimony of John Jackson is offered to show that Wheeler Whitman was the initial aggressor in the incident with Orland Olbert, is John Jackson’s testimony barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character evidence? Is John Jackson’s testimony barred by some other rule or principle of evidence?