182.) Michelson V Us.docx

o

180.) Michelson v. United States 335 U.S. 469 | December 20, 1948 | Jackson Author: Ongtenco Topic: Conduct and Character as Evidence Doctrine/s:  As a general rule, the prosecution is not allowed to adduce character evidence; the defense is allowed.  However, when the defense does resort to character witnesses, the prosecution may, on rebuttal, impeach the credibility of the witness, as the defense has “thrown open” the subject which the law has kept closed for the benefit of the defense.  Law/Rules: Case decided using common law tradition, but the import of the ruling is related to Rule 130, Sec. 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:— (a) In Criminal Cases: (1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. (2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged. (3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the offense charged. Facts:  Michelson was convicted of bribing a federal revenue agent (parang BIR employee)  The Government proved a large payment by Michelson to the agent for the purpose of influencing his official action.  Michelson, as witness, admitted passing the money, but claimed that he did it to respond to the demands, threats, solicitations, and inducements of the agent that amounted to entrapment.  On direct: Counsel for Michelson stated that Michelson had been convicted of a misdemeanor (trading in counterfeit watch dials) in 1927;  On cross: it was revealed that Michelson applied for a license to deal in second-hand jewelry in 1930. When he was asked (presumably in the application form) “whether he had been arrested or summoned for any offense,” Michelson answered “no.”  Defense (Michelson) called five witnesses to prove that he enjoyed a good reputation. o Two testified that Michelson was their acquaintance over a period of 30 years

 

The other three testified that they had known him at least half that long. o Questions and answers to and by three witnesses:  Q: Have you have occasion to discuss his reputation for honesty and truthfulness and for being a law-abiding citizen?  A: It was very good.  Q: You have talked to others? And what was his reputation?  A: Very good. o The other two witnesses said that they “never had heard anything” against Michelson On cross, the witnesses were asked: o Q: Did you ever hear that Mr. Michelson, on March 4, 1927, was convicted of a violation of the trademark law in New York City in regard to watches?”  Two witnesses had heard and two had not.  (This was a fair question, since the defendant himself had testified to this on cross—see bullet 4 -KO) o Q: Did you ever hear that, on October 11 th 1920, the defendant, Michelson, was arrested for receiving stolen goods?  None of the witnesses had heard of this.  Counsel for the defense objected to this question.  The judge asked the prosecution if this is a fact according to the best information in his possession.  Prosecution replied that it was, and gave a paper record of this arrest.  Judge warned the jury of the limited purpose that this particular piece of evidence was received: to impeach the credibility of the witnesses. Michelson challenges the right of prosecution to cross-examine the character witness. The Court of Appeals held that it was admissible—but the Appeals Court criticized the fact that it was allowed, and “invites us (as in, the SCOTUS), in one respect, to change the rule.”

Issue: (1) Whether or not the prosecution may cross-examine character witnesses Held: YES—for the limited purpose of impeaching the witness.  History of Proof of Character Witness in Common-Law Tradition: courts that follow the common law tradition almost unanimously have come to disallow





resort by the prosecution to any kind of evidence of a defendant’s evil character to establish a probability of his guilt. o The law invests the defendant with a presumption of good character o The State may not show defendant’s prior trouble with the law, specific criminal acts, or ill name among his neighbors, even though such facts might logically be persuasive. o Why such evidence is excluded:  NOT because the question is irrelevant, BUT because it “is said to weigh too much with the jury, and so to overpersuade them as to prejudge one with a bad general record and deny him a air opportunity to defend against a particular charge.”  The overriding policy of excluding such evidence, despite its admitted probative value, is the practical experience that its disallowance tends to prevent confusion of issues,unfair surprise, and undue prejudice. But on the other hand, the defendant may examine character witnesses, because character is relevant in resolving probabilities of guilt. o These kinds of examinations may be enough to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt. However, the defense is allowed to call witnesses to testify as to the character of the defendant/accused. o The price a defendant must pay for attempting to prove his good name is to throw open the entire subject which the law has kept closed for his benefit, and to make himself vulnerable where the law otherwise shields him. o The prosecution may pursue the inquiry with contradictory witnesses to show that damaging rumors, whether or not wellgrounded, were afloat—for it is not the man he is, but the name he has, which is put in issue. o While the law gives defendant the option to show as a fact that his reputation reflects a life and habit incompatible with the commission of the offense charged, it subjects his proof to tests of credibility designed to prevent him by profiting by a mere parade of partisans.

Dispositive Portion: The judgment is affirmed. Other discussions of the SCOTUS:  Nature of Character Witness, and why it’s “different”: Not only is [the defendant] permitted to call witnesses to testify from hearsay, but indeed such a witness is not allowed to base his testimony on anything but hearsay.

o



What commonly is called “character evidence” is only when such “character” is employed as a synonym for reputation.” o What a witness may testify about: that they have “heard” him to be of good chracter (and therefore, hearsay)  Summarize what he has heard in the community, although much of it may have been said by persons less qualified to judge than himself o What a witness may not testify about:  A defendant’s specific acts or courses of conduct;  The defendant’s possession of a particular disposition or of benign mental and moral traits;  The witness’ acquaintance, observation and knowledge of defendant leads to his independent opinion that the defendant possesses a good general or specific character inconsistent with the commission of the acts charged. o In summary, the evidence with the law permits is not as to the personality of the defendant, but only as to the shadow his daily life has cast in his neighborhood. HOWEVER, in modern times (the SCOTUS talked about the evolution of the legal system, including rather growth of urban conditions which limited the use of the technique of character witnesses… It’s a long case): a character witness may be cross-examined as to an arrest whether or not it culminated in a conviction, because: o Arrest, without more, does not impeach the integrity or impair the credibility of a witness (happens to the innocent as well as the guilty); o The prosecution has a right to test the qualifications of the witness to bespeak the community opinion.