Quick Summary
Michelson (defendant) was convicted of bribing a federal revenue agent. He admitted to passing money but claimed entrapment. The issue presented to the court was whether the prosecution could cross-examine Michelson’s character witnesses about his prior arrest. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded it was permissible, as it tested the credibility of the witnesses’ knowledge of Michelson’s reputation.
Facts of the Case
In 1947, Michelson was convicted of bribing a federal revenue agent by making a large payment intended to influence the agent’s official actions. Michelson admitted to passing the money but claimed it was due to the agent’s demands and threats, amounting to entrapment. At trial, Michelson’s defense called five witnesses to attest to his good reputation. During cross-examination, the prosecution asked these witnesses if they had heard about Michelson’s 1920 arrest for receiving stolen goods. None of the witnesses had heard of this incident.
The trial court allowed this line of questioning after confirming with the prosecution, outside the jury’s presence, that the arrest record existed. The prosecution also referenced Michelson’s own testimony about a 1927 misdemeanor conviction related to trading in counterfeit watch dials. The judge instructed the jury about the limited purpose of this evidence on three occasions. Michelson was convicted, and his appeal focused on whether it was appropriate for the prosecution to question his character witnesses regarding his prior arrest.
Procedural History
- Michelson was charged with bribing a federal revenue agent in 1947.
- The trial court allowed cross-examination of Michelson’s character witnesses regarding his 1920 arrest for receiving stolen goods.
- Michelson was convicted of bribery.
- Michelson appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the conviction.
- Michelson then appealed to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that the prosecution’s cross-examination of his character witnesses was improper.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether a prosecution may cross-examine a defendant’s character witnesses about specific instances of misconduct, such as a prior arrest, to test their knowledge of the defendant’s reputation.
Rule of Law
The Federal Rules of Evidence permit cross-examination of a defendant’s character witnesses about specific instances of misconduct to test their knowledge of the defendant’s reputation. Rule 404(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows such inquiries if they are relevant to assessing the credibility and reliability of reputation testimony.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed whether cross-examining Michelson’s character witnesses about his prior arrest for receiving stolen goods was permissible under Rule 404(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The rule permits questioning about specific instances of conduct if they are relevant to testing the witness’s knowledge and credibility regarding the defendant’s reputation. The court found that since Michelson chose to introduce evidence of his good character, he opened himself up to rebuttal by the prosecution. This included questioning the credibility and breadth of his character witnesses’ knowledge.
The court noted that even though an arrest without conviction does not necessarily undermine credibility, it is relevant to testing whether the witness truly knew Michelson’s reputation in the community. The court concluded that questions about an arrest, even one that did not result in a conviction, were permissible for this purpose. The significant passage of time since the arrest did not outweigh its relevance in evaluating the witnesses’ testimony about Michelson’s reputation for honesty and being law-abiding.
Conclusion
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that it was permissible for the prosecution to cross-examine Michelson’s character witnesses about his prior arrest for receiving stolen goods. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting this line of questioning.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Frankfurter concurred with the majority opinion but expressed reservations about formulating rigid rules for excluding evidence in criminal trials. He emphasized trust in federal trial courts to exercise discretion fairly and competently in managing cross-examination.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Rutledge, joined by Justice Murphy, dissented. He argued that allowing questions about prior arrests without convictions introduces unfair prejudice against defendants and contradicts principles of fair play in criminal justice. Rutledge criticized this practice as undermining due process by enabling insinuations and conjecture to influence jury decisions unjustly.
Key Takeaways
- The Federal Rules of Evidence allow cross-examination of a defendant’s character witnesses about specific instances of misconduct to test their knowledge.
- Introducing evidence of good character opens a defendant up to rebuttal by the prosecution.
- Questions about an arrest, even without a conviction, are relevant to assessing the credibility and knowledge of reputation witnesses.
- The significant passage of time does not negate the relevance of prior misconduct in evaluating reputation testimony.
Relevant FAQs of this case
References
Was this case brief helpful?