Opinion ID: 532146
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitation on the Number of Character Witnesses.

Text: 23 Benefield also argues that the district court erred in granting the government's motion to limit the number of character witnesses. Benefield originally sought to have ten character witnesses, but in response to the government's motion, the court limited the number to five. Benefield urges us to adopt the practice of both the state courts in this circuit and the Fourth Circuit and hold that it is an abuse of discretion to limit the number of character witnesses. 24 The Supreme Court has noted that the district courts are invest[ed] with discretion to limit the number of [character] witnesses and to control cross-examination. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 480, 69 S.Ct. 213, 220-21, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948). Furthermore, we should overturn these determinations rarely and only on a clear showing of prejudicial abuse of discretion. Id. Benefield alleges that the general rule is modified when the defendant's credibility and reputation are of great significance. Appellant's Brief at 19 (citing United States v. Escamilla, 467 F.2d 341, 348-49 (4th Cir.1972)). 25 The significance of the defendant's character in this case is that his testimony directly contradicts the government's case against him. Credibility determinations such as this are involved in most every trial. The instant case is indistinguishable from Michelson where the court noted that determination of the [case] turned on whether the jury should believe the [federal revenue] agent or the accused. 335 U.S. at 471, 69 S.Ct. at 216, see also United States v. Johnson, 730 F.2d 683, 688 (11th Cir.) (affirming trial court decision to limit character witnesses to three when district court determination that fourth witness would be cumulative was not abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 867, 105 S.Ct. 211, 83 L.Ed.2d 142 (1984). 26 In this case the defendant conceded at trial that he could sufficiently present his case with six character witnesses. (R2:112-15) The defendant has not--either at trial or in this court--explained what the sixth witness would have added to the defendant's case. After reviewing the record, we find no abuse of discretion. 27