Irene A. Awkard v. United States
122 U.S. App. D.C. 165, 352 F.2d 641, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5368 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant introduces character witnesses, the trial court must exercise its discretion to determine whether the probative value of a prosecutor's cross-examination about the defendant's prior arrests outweighs the potential for unfair prejudice, rather than mechanically permitting such questions.
Facts:
- An appellant was charged with simple assault and assault with intent to kill.
- During her trial, she presented Reverend Norman Kelly as a character witness to testify about her good reputation for peace and order.
- Reverend Kelly's knowledge was based on when the appellant was a 'kid' in Spencerville, Maryland, a community she had left three years prior.
- She also presented Delores Thomason, her former supervisor, as a character witness.
- Thomason testified she knew nothing about the appellant after 1961.
- The appellant's prior arrests for assault and a disorderly conduct conviction all occurred after 1961, during the time the witnesses had no knowledge of her life or reputation.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was charged with simple assault and assault with intent to kill in a trial court.
- During the trial, defense counsel 'questioned the admissibility' of the prosecutor's cross-examination concerning the appellant's prior arrests and conviction, but the judge ruled the questioning was proper.
- A jury convicted the appellant on the charges.
- The appellant appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by permitting a prosecutor to cross-examine a defendant's character witnesses about her prior arrests when the witnesses' testimony is already weak and irrelevant, and the questions serve only to prejudice the defendant rather than to test the witnesses' credibility?
Opinions:
Majority - Washington, Circuit Judge
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by permitting such questioning when its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value. While prosecutors may generally test a character witness's knowledge by asking if they have 'heard' of the defendant's prior arrests, this is not an automatic right. The trial judge has a 'heavy responsibility' to act as a gatekeeper. Here, the witnesses' testimony was weak and concerned a remote time and place; therefore, their ignorance of recent arrests did not impeach their credibility. The questions served no legitimate purpose in testing the witnesses' reliability but were highly prejudicial, creating the impression that the defendant had a propensity to commit the crime charged. Given the low probative value and high risk of prejudice, allowing the cross-examination was an abuse of discretion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the trial judge's role as a crucial gatekeeper in managing character evidence. It moves away from a rigid rule where a defendant 'opens the door' to any and all questions about past conduct, instead mandating a flexible balancing test. The ruling emphasizes that the purpose of such cross-examination is narrow—to test the witness's credibility, not to introduce propensity evidence. This precedent requires trial courts to actively weigh probative value against unfair prejudice, thereby providing greater protection to defendants from being convicted based on past misdeeds rather than the evidence of the specific crime charged.
