Michelson v.

United States
Citation. 267 U.S. 603
Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Michelson (the defendant) is on trial
for bribing a federal agent. The defendant admits the bribe, but claims
entrapment as a defense.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A party has the right to cross-examine another
parties character witnesses and inquire about past bad acts such as arrests
and/or
convictions.
Facts. The defendant is on trial for bribing a federal revenue agent.
Michelson called character witnesses and volunteered information that he
was convicted of an offense twenty years ago. The character witnesses
testified that MIchelson had a good reputation for honesty and truthfulness.
The defense was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and asked them
whether they were familiar with the fact that the defendant had been
arrested twenty seven years prior for receiving stolen goods. The court
allowed the cross-examination and warned the jury of the limited purpose of
such testimony. The defendant argued that he did not bribe the official and
that this was a case of entrapment.
Issue. Whether a party has the right to cross-examine another partys
character witnesses and inquire about past bad acts such as arrests and/or
convictions?
Held. Arrest without more does not impeach the integrity or impair the
credibility of witness and hence only a conviction may be inquired about to
undermine the trustworthiness of a witness. Before a character witness is
cross-examined as to a prior arrest of the defendant, the prosecution should
demonstrate privately to the court that it is not based on unsupported or
untrue
innuendo.
Dissent.
Justice Wiley Rutledge (J. Rutledge) and Justice Frank Murphy (J.
Murphy) dissented. Here, the Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) concluded there are sound reasons basic to our system
of criminal justice, which justify initially excluding the Government from
showing the defendants bad general character or reputation. Our whole
tradition is that a man can be punished by criminal sanctions only for specific
acts defined beforehand to be criminal, not for general misconduct or
bearing a reputation for such misconduct.

Concurrence.
Justice Felix Frankfurter (J. Frankfurter) filed a concurring opinion. It is
unprofitable for appellate courts to formulate rigid rules for the exclusion of
evidence in courts of law that outside them would not be regarded as clearly
irrelevant in the determination of issues.
Discussion. Generally, the prosecution may not resort in its case in chief to
any kind of evidence of defendants evil character, disposition, and
reputation to establish probability of his guilt. However, when the defendant
puts his reputation in issue, the entire subject is fair game and the
prosecution may cross-examine the defendants character witnesses as to
the contents and extent of the hearsay on which they base their conclusions.
When the defendant elects to initiate a character inquiry commonly called
character evidence, the witness may not testify about defendants specific
acts or courses of conduct.
In this case, the inquiry concerned an arrest twenty-seven years before the
trial. Events a generation old are likely to be lived down and dropped from
the present thought and talk of the community and to be absent from the
knowledge of younger or more recent acquaintances. But, where defendant
has put his reputation in issue by the calling of character witnesses, he
cannot complain at the latitude which is allowed the prosecution in meeting,
by cross-examination the issue thus voluntarily tendered, notwithstanding
the difficulty which the jury may experience in comprehending the courts
limiting instructions.