Also known as: FRE 406 · Fed. R. Evid. 406 · Rule 406 · habit evidence rule · routine practice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence allowing admission of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice to prove that the person or organization acted in conformity with the habit or routine practice on a particular occasion. The rule authorizes receipt of the evidence without regard to corroboration or the presence of an eyewitness.
Carla slips on a puddle in an aisle at Frostline Textiles' retail outlet. The company calls assistant manager Felix Franco to testify that he walks every aisle hourly with a log sheet and photographs any spills regardless of store traffic. The testimony supports an inference that Franco followed the same inspection routine shortly before Carla's fall.
Maria Perez sues Metro General Hospital after receiving the wrong medication. The hospital offers two coworkers to testify that Nurse Elena Lopez scans every patient's wristband and states the name and date of birth aloud before administering any drug. The testimony supports an inference that Lopez followed her verification sequence when medicating Perez.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Carlos falls from scaffolding at a MetroBuild site and claims supervisor Dana skipped the morning safety inspection. Coworkers testify that Dana unfailingly walks every scaffold at 6:30 a.m. with a checklist before any worker climbs. The testimony supports an inference that Dana inspected the scaffolding on the morning of Carlos's fall.
The rule expressly states that the court may admit habit or routine-practice evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness. This feature distinguishes habit evidence from other forms of proof that often demand direct observation.
Supporting sources
Habit describes a specific, repetitive, and nearly automatic response to a particular situation. Character evidence concerns a general propensity or trait and is subject to stricter limits under Rule 404. The distinction turns on the narrowness and regularity of the described conduct.
Supporting sources
The conduct must be specific, regular, and semi-automatic in response to a recurring situation. Occasional deviations during periods of stress or heavy workload may still permit admission if the overall pattern remains sufficiently consistent for the jury to draw an inference of conformity.
Supporting sources
Yes. Testimony describing an organization's fixed, repeated procedures qualifies as routine-practice evidence. Disputes about how faithfully the practice was followed on the occasion in question affect weight rather than admissibility.
Supporting sources
…testimony, our application of those Clauses to the context of custodial police interrogation is relatively recent because the routine practice of such interrogation is itself a relatively new development. See, e. g., Miranda , 384 U. S., at 445-458. [^maj-2]: See also Davis v. United States , 512 U. S. 452, 457-458 (1994);…