United States v. Merlin J. Bruguier, Sr.
161 F.3d 1145, 1998 WL 823643 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant offers opinion testimony about a pertinent character trait under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1), the prosecution may cross-examine the character witness about their knowledge of specific instances of the defendant's conduct to test the basis and credibility of the witness's opinion.
Facts:
- In August 1996, Merlin J. Bruguier's 17-month-old daughter, M.M.B., suffered severe injuries, including a broken thigh bone and a seriously torn perineum.
- Bruguier claimed the injuries resulted from the family car accidentally rolling over the child.
- Medical testimony presented at trial indicated it was extremely unlikely that a car accident could have caused the specific combination of injuries M.M.B. sustained.
- A forensic analysis found at least one sperm cell in material collected from M.M.B.'s person.
- During an interview with an FBI agent, Bruguier admitted to having 'inappropriate sexual contact' with the child.
- At his trial, Bruguier called two character witnesses, his mother-in-law Colette Iron Hawk and community health representative Violet Good Bear.
- Both witnesses testified that, in their opinion, Bruguier was a good father.
Procedural Posture:
- Merlin J. Bruguier, Sr., was charged with aggravated sexual abuse in the United States District Court.
- At trial, the defense called character witnesses, and the prosecution cross-examined them regarding their knowledge of a prior finding of child neglect against Bruguier, to which the defense objected.
- The District Court overruled the objection and allowed the line of questioning.
- A jury found Bruguier guilty.
- Bruguier was sentenced to 25 years and 10 months in prison.
- Bruguier (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, arguing that the District Court erred by allowing the prejudicial cross-examination.
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 the Federal Rules of Evidence permit the prosecution to cross-examine a defendant's opinion character witnesses about their knowledge of a prior finding of child neglect against the defendant, after the witnesses have testified that the defendant is a 'good father'?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, J.
Yes. When a defendant puts a pertinent character trait at issue by offering opinion testimony, the prosecution is permitted to rebut that evidence by cross-examining the witness about their knowledge of specific, relevant instances of conduct. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1), an accused may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait. Rule 405(a) allows this proof to be in the form of an opinion. When the defendant's witnesses offered their opinion that he was a 'good father,' they 'opened the door' to rebuttal. The prosecution's questions about the prior finding of child neglect were relevant to explore the witnesses' basis for their opinion. If the witnesses were unaware of the finding, a jury could conclude their opinion was based on incomplete knowledge; if they were aware, a jury could question their judgment. The court distinguished this case from United States v. Monteleone, where the character evidence was about reputation, not opinion. For reputation testimony, the prosecutor must have a good-faith belief that the specific act was widely known in the community. For opinion testimony, however, a specific act is relevant to the witness’s personal basis of knowledge, regardless of whether it was publicly known.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct standards for cross-examining opinion character witnesses versus reputation character witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 405(a). By allowing inquiry into specific acts that are not necessarily matters of public knowledge to test an opinion witness's basis, the court gives prosecutors more latitude than with reputation witnesses. The decision underscores the significant risk a defendant takes by introducing character evidence, as it 'opens the door' to potentially prejudicial information. However, the court also strongly admonished the prosecution for failing to first establish its good-faith basis for the questions outside the jury's hearing, reinforcing an important procedural safeguard to prevent undue prejudice, even if the error in this case was deemed harmless.
