Michelson was tried and convicted in federal court for bribing a federal revenue agent. He admitted giving the agent money but claimed entrapment, making credibility between him and the agent central. Michelson then introduced five character witnesses who testified to his good reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and being law-abiding. On cross-examination, the prosecution asked those witnesses whether they had heard that Michelson had been arrested in 1920 for receiving stolen goods and convicted in 1927 of a trademark-related misdemeanor; the trial judge first confirmed outside the jury's presence that the arrest had in fact occurred and repeatedly instructed the jury on the limited purpose of the questions.
When a criminal defendant introduces reputation evidence of his good character, may the prosecution cross-examine the defendant’s character witnesses by asking whether they have heard of the defendant’s prior arrest, even though it did not result in a conviction and was remote in time?
A defendant who puts his character in issue through reputation witnesses opens the subject to cross-examination testing those witnesses’ knowledge and credibility. The prosecution may, in the trial court’s discretion and in good faith, ask character witnesses whether they have heard of relevant prior arrests, convictions, or rumors that bear on the reputation traits the defense has asserted, not as substantive proof of guilt but to test the witnesses’ familiarity with community reputation.
Yes. The Court held that the prosecution’s cross-examination of Michelson’s character witnesses about whether they had heard of his prior arrest was permissible, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing it with appropriate safeguards and limiting instructions.
The Court explained that character evidence in criminal cases is a special, hearsay-based exception that the defendant may choose to invoke, and once he does so he assumes the risk that the prosecution may probe the basis of the witnesses’ testimony. Asking 'have you heard' questions is proper because reputation testimony concerns community talk, and a witness unaware of significant rumors or arrests may be unreliable as a spokesman for reputation. The 1920 arrest for receiving stolen goods was relevant to the traits Michelson had placed in issue—honesty and law-abidingness—even though the charged crime was bribery. Because the judge verified the factual basis for the question, limited its use, and acted within broad discretion over remoteness and prejudice, no reversible error occurred.
Michelson is the leading Supreme Court case on the common-law treatment of character evidence in criminal cases and the scope of cross-examining defense reputation witnesses. It confirms that once a defendant offers good-character reputation evidence, the prosecution may test those witnesses with good-faith 'have you heard' questions about prior misconduct or arrests relevant to the traits asserted, while trial courts retain broad discretion to police abuse. The case is closely related to Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361 (1896), which recognized the potential exculpatory force of good-character evidence, and Greer v. United States, 245 U.S. 559 (1918), which emphasized that the prosecution cannot initiate character evidence but may respond once the defendant opens the door. Michelson’s framework also anticipated the later codification of character-evidence rules in the Federal Rules of Evidence, especially Rules 404 and 405.
Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361 (1896) |
Verified |
Greer v. United States, 245 U.S. 559 (1918) |
Abstain |
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →