Opinion ID: 433135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limiting the Number of Character Witnesses

Text: 35 Appellant Johnson next argues that the district court erred in limiting the number of character witnesses that the defense could call to testify as to Mason's truthfulness. 5 Hill's counsel had called three witnesses who testified to their lack of trust in Mason, after which the government made a motion to prevent further character evidence against Mason. Hill's counsel indicated that he had no additional character witnesses, and the court noted, that took care of itself. 36 The government argues, based on the above exchange, that the trial court never actually ruled on the government's motion to limit character evidence. When a later witness was on the stand, however, Hill's counsel stated, Your Honor, again, I would proffer the testimony of this witness in regards to the truthfulness of Nick Mason. The government objected and the trial court ruled that the testimony would be cumulative. 6 We find, therefore, that the trial court did limit the amount of character evidence against Mason. 37 The decision to limit the number of character witnesses and the amount of character evidence is within the trial court's discretion. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948). The appellants maintain that here the trial judge improperly limited the number of character witnesses to three, citing for support United States v. Gray, 507 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir.1975). Gray, however, stands only for the proposition that a trial judge should not use an unvarying rule as to the number of character witnesses allowed without regard for the circumstances of the case, because such a rule would be arbitrary and not an exercise of discretion. Gray is inapplicable to the case at hand, as the judge did not rely on an unvarying rule but determined that any further character evidence would be cumulative. Nor do we find after reviewing the record that the district court abused its discretion in limiting the number of character witnesses or the amount of character evidence against Mason. We agree with the district court that the three character witnesses called by the defense were given ample opportunity to express their distrust of Mason, and that any further testimony would not have significantly aided the jury in assessing Mason's credibility.