Case Brief Michelson v. US

[EVIDENCE – CHARACTER EVIDENCE] MICHELSON V. UNITED STATES - UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT - 335 U.S. 469 (1948) RULE OF LAW: A prosecutor may cross-examine a defendant's character witness about whether he or she has heard of a defendant's prior arrest or conviction unrelated to the charge for which the defendant is on trial. 1) FACTS AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND - [material facts + procedural background] Michelson (defendant) was charged with bribing a federal revenue agent. At trial, Michelson’s counsel called five witnesses to attempt to prove that Michelson had a good reputation in the community. On cross examination, the prosecution (plaintiff) asked four of those witnesses if they ever heard that Michelson was arrested for receiving stolen goods. None of the witnesses had ever heard this, but the prosecution provided a record to the judge outside the presence of the jury to show that it had not simply fabricated the arrest to harm Michelson’s reputation in the eyes of the jury. Michelson was convicted of the bribery charge. The court of appeals affirmed. Michelson appealed on the grounds that the prosecution was incorrectly permitted to cross-examine the witnesses about the prior arrest. 2) LEGAL ISSUE May a prosecutor cross-examine a defendant's character witness about whether he or she has heard of a defendant's prior arrest or conviction unrelated to the charge for which the defendant is on trial? 3) HOLDING (JACKSON) Yes. After a defendant has put his character at issue by calling witnesses to testify to his good reputation, it opens the door to the prosecution crossexamining the witnesses about that reputation and providing contradictory witnesses. 4) RATIONALE (i) INTERPRETATION OF RULES [EVIDENCE + PURPOSE OF THE EVIDENCE] RULE 404(1)(A) + RULE 404(1)(B): character evidence is evidence based on (i) character, (ii) character trait, (iii) past instance of conduct other than the conduct of the crime under trial. Purpose: evidence is offered to prove (1) [general] PROPENSITY of a person to engage in some unlawful/illegal conduct (ex. He is a violent person and many times in the past engaged in violent actions) and (2) [specific] PROPENSITY that in the case at stake the defendant acted according to such propensity. Analysis: (1) is evidence relevant? (Yes, likely); (2) is the evidence material? (Yes, likely); (3) is this character evidence? (Yes, likely); (4) does this character evidence trigger rule 403 creating a danger of unfair prejudice? (Yes, likely). (ii) GENERAL PRACTICE ON CHARACTER WITNESS CROSS EXAMINATION IS ALLOWED TO OFFER BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS ALREADY “OPEN THE DOOR” TO CHARACTER EVIDENCE DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION FOR REPUTATION OR OPINION ON THE DEFENDANT Specifically, the prosecution may cross-examine a witness about knowledge of the defendant’s prior arrest after the defendant has put his character at issue, but only for the purposes of refuting evidence of the defendant’s good character or to test the sufficiency of the witness’s knowledge about the defendant. Generally, the prosecution may not bring up this type of character evidence unless it goes to an ultimate issue in the case. However, once the defendant opens the door by bringing forth positive character evidence, the prosecution may bring its own evidence as to the reputation of the defendant in the community as well as for the limited purpose of testing the qualifications of the witness to reliably testify about the defendant’s reputation. If a witness has not heard at least rumors about the defendant’s poor character traits, such as an arrest, then it is questionable whether the witness has sufficient knowledge of his reputation to be reliable. (iii) APPLICATION TO THE CASE In this case, because Michelson voluntarily opened the door to character evidence by calling witnesses to testify about his good reputation in the community, the prosecution was permitted to respond with evidence of poor character to refute that testimony. Although the crime Michelson was on trial for, bribery, is not the same as receipt of stolen goods, they both stem from poor character traits that the witnesses claimed the defendant did not have. As a result, it was proper to admit evidence of Michelson’s prior arrest because if proved, it would weaken the claim that Michelson had a reputation as a good, law-abiding citizen in the community. In addition, it was proper to cross-examine the witnesses about the arrest, not for purposes of proving that the arrest occurred, but for the limited purpose of testing the qualifications of the witnesses to reliably testify about the defendant’s reputation in the community. If they were reliable witnesses, they likely should have known about an event such as an arrest. Accordingly, the court of appeals is affirmed. 5) DISSENTING OPINION: ROUTLEDGE Although it is acceptable for the prosecution to rebut evidence of good character introduced by the defendant, it is impermissible to introduce evidence of past arrest under the guise of testing the standards of the witness.