Michelson v. United States
335 U.S. 469 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a criminal defendant introduces witnesses to testify about their good character, they open the door for the prosecution to cross-examine those witnesses about their knowledge of specific past instances of the defendant's misconduct, including arrests, to test the witnesses' familiarity with the defendant's reputation.
Facts:
- Solomon Michelson was on trial for bribing a federal revenue agent.
- Michelson admitted passing money to the agent but claimed it was a result of the agent's entrapment, making the credibility of both men a central issue.
- To bolster his credibility, Michelson called five character witnesses to testify that he had a good reputation in the community for honesty, truthfulness, and being a law-abiding citizen.
- On direct examination, Michelson's own counsel had him admit to a 1927 misdemeanor conviction related to counterfeit watch dials.
- On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked four of the character witnesses if they had ever heard that Michelson was arrested on October 11, 1920, for receiving stolen goods.
- None of the witnesses testified that they had heard of the 1920 arrest.
- Outside the jury's presence, the prosecutor provided the court with a paper record to show a good-faith basis for asking about the 1920 arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- Solomon Michelson was charged with bribing a federal revenue agent in the United States District Court (a federal trial court).
- A jury found Michelson guilty.
- Michelson, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in allowing certain cross-examination questions.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but criticized the underlying evidence rule and invited Supreme Court review.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it permissible under the rules of evidence for the prosecution to cross-examine a defendant's character witnesses about their knowledge of the defendant's prior arrests, even if those arrests are remote in time and for offenses dissimilar to the crime charged?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jackson
Yes. When a defendant elects to introduce character evidence, the prosecution is permitted to cross-examine those character witnesses regarding their knowledge of the defendant's prior arrests. The prosecution's inquiry is not to prove the fact of the prior misconduct, but rather to test the witness's knowledge and standards for the defendant's reputation. While the prosecution may not introduce evidence of a defendant's bad character in its case-in-chief, a defendant 'opens the door' to the subject by presenting evidence of his good character. The court reasoned that an arrest, even without a conviction, is an event that can damage one's reputation in the community. Therefore, asking a character witness if they have 'heard' of such an event is a valid way to test whether that witness is truly familiar with the defendant's reputation. The trial court has wide discretion to control such questioning to prevent unfair prejudice, and in this case, the judge properly verified the prosecutor's good-faith basis for the question and provided the jury with limiting instructions.
Dissenting - Justice Rutledge
No. Allowing the prosecution to ask character witnesses about prior arrests is fundamentally unfair and highly prejudicial. Despite any limiting instructions from the judge, the jury will almost certainly infer that the arrest actually occurred, effectively putting the defendant on trial for past misconduct for which he has no opportunity to defend himself. The dissent argues that this practice forces a defendant to pay too high a price for exercising their right to present character evidence. This line of questioning allows the prosecution to introduce 'gossip, innuendo and insinuation' under the guise of testing a witness's knowledge. A fairer rule would either allow the defendant a chance to rebut the insinuation or would restrict the prosecution's counterproof to the same type of general reputation evidence that the defendant is limited to presenting.
Concurring - Justice Frankfurter
Yes. While expressing sympathy for the concerns raised in the dissent, the concurrence joins the majority because it is unwise for appellate courts to create rigid, exclusionary rules of evidence. The prevailing practice in nearly all state courts allows this type of cross-examination, and rejecting this body of experience is unwarranted. This system's fairness depends on the high professional competence and good sense of federal district judges, who are given the discretion to control the process. Appellate review can do little to compensate for a lack of such qualities at the trial level, so it is better to trust trial judges with this discretion.
Analysis:
Michelson v. United States is a landmark case solidifying the 'opening the door' doctrine for character evidence in American law. It affirmed the trial court's broad discretion in controlling the scope of cross-examination and established the framework for testing the credibility of character witnesses. The decision underscores the significant strategic risk a defendant takes when putting their character at issue, as it exposes them to otherwise inadmissible evidence of past misconduct. This ruling has had a lasting impact, forcing defense attorneys to weigh the benefits of presenting a client's good reputation against the 'Pandora's box' of prejudicial information the prosecution might introduce in rebuttal.
Unlock the full brief for Michelson v. United States