Opinion ID: 779290
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Questioning about the Airport Incident

Text: 53 The government asked Green's wife, Ruth Green, and William Roberts, a longtime personal friend of Green's, who were both character witnesses for Green, if either of them were aware of an alleged seizure of $18,000 from Green at the Atlanta airport in 1979. Both denied any knowledge of the incident. The government did not pursue any further questioning about the incident. 54 Green argues that the government's questions were an improper attempt to assert facts not in evidence and the questions were unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded under Fed.R.Civ.P. 403. The government says that the questions were proper cross-examination of character witnesses. 55 A district court's evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hancock v. Dodson, 958 F.2d 1367 (6th Cir.1992).
56 Federal Rule of Evidence 405(a) establishes the procedure for introducing character evidence and the general scope of cross-examination, stating in part that [i]n all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. Fed.R.Evid. 405(a). This court has noted that relevant specific instances of conduct are only instances going to the accuracy of the character witnesses' testimony. If ... direct testimony is addressed to community reputation, inquiry may be made about conduct, and even about charges, which may have come to the attention of the relevant community. United States v. Curtis, 644 F.2d 263, 268 (3rd Cir.1981).
57 Here, both Ruth Green and William Roberts testified on direct examination as to Green's good character and that Green was a law-abiding citizen. Given this testimony, the government could inquire as to whether they were aware of the airport incident. When both denied having any knowledge of the incident, the government properly ended this line of questioning. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in allowing this line of questioning.