Question about a legal/criminal justice wording

[The Backlash Cometh]

I'm looking for the manner that lawyers speak when they're trying to say, "This person has done this before so using his past pattern, this is how he would have handled this situation." Or, his reason was faulty in the past, therefore, we need to question his reasoning for accuracy today."

I know "precedent" would work, but I'm trying to say it the way he would talk so a jury would understand him.

[Romulox]

1. "propensity"?

Generally, one may not use past actions to prove guilt in the present case. However, this rule is so fraught with exceptions as to be close to meaningless...

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I'm not trying to use it to prove guilt.

What I need it for is to say that the person's accuracy was wrong in the past, therefore, we shouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt that he is right on a current matter. His facts need to be checked.

[Romulox]

7. In that case, I would "say what you mean": documented history of inaccuracy, e.g.

As always, context is everything...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. "demonstrated propensity"?

There's "pattern and practice" (I think that's right) referring to the way things have usually been done.

[The Backlash Cometh]

4. That's two votes.

I think that might be it. Thanks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. The thing is, propensity might have a neagtive connotation

I'm not sure about that...

Google a definition of it to be sure

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. Yes. negative is good.

And I am researching it further. Thanks.

[GodlessBiker]

8. "Consistent behavioral trait," since "propensity evidence" is so frowned upon in the law.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Yes, you all are right.

Propensity is iffy. But I did find the wording I was looking for.