Document: 335 U.S. 469 69 S.Ct. 213 93 L.Ed. 168 MICHELSONv.UNITED STATES. No. 23. Argued Oct. 14, 15, 1948. Decided Dec. 20, Mr. Louis J. Castellano, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Joseph M. Howard, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion Court. 1 In 1947 petitioner Michelson was convicted bribing a federal revenue agent.1 The Government proved large payment by accused to agent purpose influencing his official action. defendant, as witness on own behalf, admitted passing money but claimed it done in response agent's demands, threats, solicitations, and inducements that amounted entrapment. It is enough our purposes say determination issue turned whether jury should believe or accused.2 2 On direct examination counsel brought out that, 1927, he had been misdemeanor having do with trading counterfeit watch dials. cross-examination appeared 1930, executing an application license deal second-hand jewelry, answered 'No' question theretofore arrested summoned any offense. 3 Defendant called five witnesses prove enjoyed good reputation. Two them testified their acquaintance him extended over period about thirty years others said they known at least half long. A typical chief follows: 4 'Q. Do you know defendant Michelson? A. Yes. 5 How long About 30 years. 6 other people who him? 7 Have have occasion discuss reputation honesty You talked others? 8 And what reputation? Very good.' 9 These are representative answers three witnesses; two replied, substance, never heard anything against Michelson. 10 cross-examination, four were asked, this question: 'Did ever hear March 4, violation trademark law New York City regard watches?' This referred twenty-year-old conviction which himself examination. not. 11 To these prosecution also addressed allowance which, defendant's objection, be reversible error: 12 October 11th, 1920, Solomon Michelson, receiving stolen goods?' 13 None appears this. 14 trial court asked prosecution, presence jury, 'Is fact according best information your possession Counsel replied was, support faith exhibited paper record did not challenge. 15 judge occasions warned terms criticized, limited evidence received.3 16 Defendant-petitioner challenges right so cross-examine character witnesses. Court Appeals held permissible. opinion, however, points practice has severely criticized invites us, one respect, change rule.4 Serious responsible criticism aimed, alone detail now questioned common-law doctrine whole subject proof character.5 would possible appraise usefulness propriety without consideration unique concerning testimony, such minor part.6 17 Courts follow tradition almost unanimously come disallow resort kind evil establish probability guilt.7 Not invests presumption character, Greer v. United States, 245 559, 38 209, 62 469, simply closes matter disp sition prosecution's case-in-chief. State may show prior trouble law, specific criminal acts, ill name among neighbors, even though facts might logically persuasive propensity probable perpetrator crime.8 inquiry rejected because irrelevant;9 contrary, weigh too much overpersuade prejudge bad general deny fair opportunity defend particular charge. overriding policy excluding evidence, despite its probative value, practical experience disallowance tends prevent confusion issues, unfair surprise undue prejudice.10 18 But line firmly denied opened relevant resolving probabilities guilt.11 He introduce affirmative testimony estimate favorable infer likely commit offense charged. privilege sometimes valuable alone, some circumstances, raise reasonable doubt guilt courts proper case instructed. Edgington 164 361, 72, 41 467. 19 When elects initiate inquiry, another anomalous rule comes into play. only permitted call testify from hearsay, indeed allowed base hearsay.12 What commonly 'character evidence' when 'character' employed synonym 'reputation.' acts courses conduct disposition benign mental moral traits; nor can acquaintance, observation, knowledge leads independent possesses inconsistent commission f is, summarize community, although persons less qualified than himself. permits personality shadow daily life cast neighborhood. well described different connection 'the slow growth months years, resultant picture forgotten incidents, events, habitual conduct, presumably honest disinterested, safer trusted prone suspect. * reason repute proven. sums up multitude trivial details. compacts brief phrase verdict teaching many incidents average intelligence drawing conclusion.' Finch J., Badger Badger, 88 N.Y. 546, 552, 42 Am.Rep. 263. 20 While recognized logical grounds type opinion-based-on-hearsay justified 'overwhelming considerations convenience' avoiding innumerable collateral issues if attempted complicate confuse trial, distract minds jurymen befog litigation. People Van Gaasbeck, 189 408, 418, 82 N.E. 718, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 650, Ann.Cas. 745. 21 Another paradox branch delicate task compacting hearsay 'brief verdict' few instances conclusions accepted expert. However, must qualify give showing community lived circles moved, speak authority generally regarded. require seem latitude given all 'heard nothing defendant.' upon assumption no reported one, good.13 answer whose habitat surroundings intimate failure assurance ugly rumors about.14 Thus extends helpful illogical options defendant. Experience taught necessity counterweighted equally conditions keep advantage becoming unreasonable one. price pay attempting throw open entire kept closed benefit make vulnerable where otherwise shields him. pursue contradictory witnesses15 damaging rumors, well-grounded, afloat—for man put issue. hazard contents extent hears y bases conclusions, required disclose reports current affect conclusion.16 test sufficiency asking stories circulating one's arrest, normally comment speculate. Thus, while gives option reflects habit incompatible charged, subjects tests credibility designed profiting mere parade partisans. 23 thus digress contest standing accused, oopens tricky shapeless elusive matter. At worst opens veritable Pandora's box irresponsible gossip, innuendo smear. frontier phase law's development, calling friends vouch counterpart—calling rivals enemies impeach testifying veracity unworthy belief oath favorite frequent ways converting individual litigation spectacle. Growth urban conditions, next-door neighbor, tended limit use techniques deprive weight juries. popularity both procedures subsided, last sought overcome danger true will obscured confused investing discretion number control cross-examination. Both abuse sides, depend numerous subtle considerations, difficult detect cold record, therefore rarely clear prejudicial disturb rulings subject.17 24 Wide accompanied heavy responsibility protect misuse. scrupulous guard ore us. took pains ascertain, target actual event, probably result acquaintances injury satisfied merely taking random shot imprudently exposed groundless waft unwarranted box.18 25 court, involves several features worthy comment. Its form invited hearsay; conviction, closely similar trial; concerned occurrence past. 26 Since we pointed out, calculated ascertain talk rather witness' him, 'Have heard?' approval, 'Do know?' allowed.19 27 cross-examined arrest culminated overwhelming authority.20 prohibits arrested. 28 Arrest more does not, reason, integrity impair witness. happens innocent guilty. Only therefore, inquired undermine trustworthiness 29 nevertheless cloud False that. Even acquitted damage receives wink chooses remember ought convicted. hand, misfortune injustice, enhance mends lives down. Reputation net balance debits credits attach finality reputation, convict. permissible qualifications bespeak opinion. If speculations indulge capable giving very reliable 31 crime goods; bribery. thought dissimilarity offenses great sustain logic, conceding authorized preponderance authority. asks us substitute Illinois allows identifical charges, place adhered country England.21 We think proposal inexpedient. 32 charcter broader charged included traits 'honesty truthfulness' 'being law-abiding citizen.' Possession characteristics offering bribe goods. crimes unlike, alike proceed same defects reputed exhibit. comparison asserted made inquiry. By goods, admitted, tend weaken assertion citizen. take ground verify. hold fact; refutation founded voncictions exactly repeated present 33 here twenty-seven before trial. Events generation old down dropped absent younger recent acquaintances. exclude event remote, unless misconduct revived them. dated commencing Defendant, examination, voluntarily attention twenty before. conclude indecesive 1920 shed little light hence propensities cannot context absence objection ground, admission discretion. 34 overlook minimize surely comprehend Judge's limiting instructions,' disturbed Appeals. refinements evidentiary rules lawyers judges, after study reflection, often confused, jurors hurried unfamiliar movement find unintelligible. instructions apply those va ious subjects; example, admissions co-defendant considered defendants, problems conspiracy charges. powerless cause being irretrievably confused; but, cases foreclosed confounding opening Given option, defendants valid complaint existing meet tendered defense. See 469. 35 end, began, observation regulating testing merit criticisms. England, states overhauled statute.22 modernizing longstanding magnitude difficulty dedicated reform lightly undertake.23 36 relating developed entirely hands state resort, questions frequently Court, contributed others, extremely rare decide paucity citations writings attests. obvious infrequent sallies field recast body many, be. 37 concur courts, textwriters profession archaic, paradoxical full compromises compensations irrational side offset poorly reasoned counter-privilege other. somehow workable clumsy system moderated discretionary controls wise strong court. pull misshapen stone grotesque structure upset between adverse interests rational edifice. suggestion adopt new elsewhere.24 error engender imperceptible improvement, any, justified, all, accumulated judicial exp rience abstract logic.25 judgment 39 Affirmed. 40 FRANKFURTER, concurring. Despite my feelings run direction views expressed RUTLEDGE dissent, I join Court's unprofitable, balance, appellate formulate rigid exclusion outside regarded clearly irrelevant issues. For well-understood reasons occasional ventures formulating hardly encourage confidence denying power allowable scope possessed judges practically courts. After uniformity trials crystallization due force imitation. reject impressive imply dependable wisdom sort claim. leave District States decision presupposes high standard professional competence, sense, fairness courage part district judges. manned qualities, review, how stringent, lack 43 RUTLEDGE, whom MURPHY joins, dissenting. 44 candidly interestingly characterizing so-called cases. first time puts stamp approval most and, important, stage sequence. 45 There stages. denies attack chief, either derogatory disconnected crime. second bears tarnished illrepute. forbidden, go details conduct. witness, once qualified, knows third comprehends rebuttal, particularly allowed. 46 agree anomalous, exceptions Anomalies there are, room improvement. here, anywhere, largely experience, practicability through centuries, effort construct nicely logical, wholly consistent pattern things. Imperfect variable scheme become rules, represents centuries seeking English-speaking peoples play causes. 47 Moreover, sequence stages quality each. vast difference respect summarizing affecting third. 48 Regardless consistency, suppose now, laymen, advocate prevailing governing causes especially, sound basic justice justify initially 49 common grown convicting sending prison General yet scheme. Our punished sanctions defined beforehand criminal, bearing misconduct. 50 That lies heart process. foundation community. fundamental conceptions process, exclusion. restrain limits charge perhaps amounting perpetrated lie door. 51 course, exception exclusion, else could all. presents substantial question. Apart acceptance, 467, allowing rest forbids bring public chief. rebuttal. none dangers involving possibility characterize permitting latter tender proof. 52 positive ancient pronounces chosen riches. True, men deserve it. Or slip fall situations. rule. close cases, leaves doubt, fellows turns scales justice. sufficient create innocence sow requires guilty returned. 53 apparent anomaly excludes beginning lets apparent. parcel casts until beyond doubt. away pertinent existence far, nullify requiring removal intimation obsolete effects live cities formerly. They parts plan, important observed urban. 54 But, variety reasons, report virtue criminality theory 'By fruits ye shall them.' Whether irrelevant, distracting timeconsuming, summarized settled, rightly, restricts repute. 55 whatever differences usual inhere premises thinking starts, disagreement dissatisfaction results. All well, approve No doors prosecution. 56 situation stage, Obviously rebuttal be, gain chance counteract. problem. 57 defense do, contradict testimony. inquire far exceed bounds made. 58 For, guise 'testing standards speaks door thrown wide trying life, incident. worse, rebut otherwise. Hardly incident, however remote derogatory, drawn testifies this' that.' quality, prosecutor, inflection tone, aspersion question, hope 59 dangers, potential prejudice cause, excerpt Wigmore's classic treatise, quoted note 473, 217. His summary consequences produced repetition greater emphasis. said: 60 'The rumor misconduct, goes spite judge's charge, towards fixing person, improper things,—(1) violates trustworthy (3) facts, (2) gets only, person means defending denial explanation, issue.' Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed., 1940) § 988. 61 denied. modes protection available accused. One refrain re uttal knowing producing contrary refuted. showing, highly unjust, exact, doing so, throwing almosy act insinuate proving committed leaving reply. afford restrict counterproof way limited. changes case, manner applying earlier seek avoid. Nor enough, judgment, trust excesses effectively need standards. provided under ruling; provide except each arise. 63 seems me, inadequacy unrestricted delegation. demonstrate unfairly bringing extraneous immaterial matters jury's attention, effect prejudice. Petitioner clean breast violating laws. course witnesses' speaking repute, conceivably accused's 1947. 64 Then went back seven further 'on 1920' fact. solemnly instructed consider incident place, happening prosecutor This, satisfactory taken place. 65 itself notice jury. assume, allow fiction. why 1920,' 'in arrested, violation?' Why 'for goods'? reputation,' telling directly deny, namely, arrested; thereby insinuating guess outcome. arising excluded. tell produced. 66 permitted. Of reflecting so. single proceedings outcome, acquittal seldom ave reputation; per se generally, unguarded conjecture neither perversion process applied forbids, conjecture, insinuation. 67 Accordingly, reversed. changed. suggested adopting rule,1 Logically objections greatly reducing volume etc., comparable reduction innuendo, insinuation gossip. My preference think, foreclose past, turning previous other, plane relation evidence. handle count U.S.C. 91, 201, U.S.C.A. affirmance Appeals, Cir., 165 F.2d 732, review. 'offering' statute reversed involved. Details appear 732. ruling '* instruct this: witnesses, basis since tenders ask she various career. regardless her assume actually tested. Is clear?' overruling 'Again goods isn't Now fairly asked? would? right.' following: 'In knew tried instruction then seemed have. legally within him; were. just drive mind concerned, weighing witnesses.' Footnote court's reads follows (165 735): 'Wigmore, ed. 988, noting 'such inquiries universally admitted,' 'impeachment extrinsic misconduct,' 'witness' knowledge,' continues comments: 'But serious above distinction—between facts—cannot maintained things, (1) occurrences possibility, practice. method resorted injuring indirection forbidden way; rely putting (not caring negatively) convey convert value small opportunities underhand amount subterfuge, strictly supervised forbidding faith.' 'Because, Wigmore says, instruction, writer wishes Supreme rule, i.e., relate Aiken People, 183 Ill. 215, 695; cf. Hannon, 381 206, N.E.2d 923.' uttered warning writer, heeded determining grant certiorari here: used like told admission, it, sensibly. gather mist discussion serves thicken, scarcely dissipate add.' L. Hand Nash 1006, 1007. cyclopedic review authorities jurisdictions, CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM summarizes 'have illogical, unscientific, explainable archaic survivals compurgation legal development personally based.' C.J.S., Evidence, 433. Maguire, Evidence: Common Sense Law (1947). Compare pp. 203—209 74—76. 469; 57; Wharton, Criminal (11th 1935) 330. English civil countries. 193. qualification, element later offense; criminal. well-established transactions fraudulent intent See, e.g., Fall App.D.C. 124, 506, 283 867, 657, 75 1471; Hatem 40, 282 887, 103, 782; Williamson 207 425, 163, 278; Allis 155 117, 36, 91; Wood Pet. 342, 987. As ago 1865, Chief Cockburn said, truth anomaly. Although, speaking, quite antecedent lays innocence, cannot, character.' Reg Rowton, Cox's Cases 25, 29—30. see 55. 57. 56; Underhill, (4th 165; §§ 330, 336. 1609; 170; 333. 420, L.R.A., N.S., apparently ignores human ciphers Kipling's Tomlinson, recalled. win seats righteous purposes, hard lot literature. Id.; (2d 1614; 171; 334. 58; 167; example books murder. She grew peace quiet, good. anybody many. answered, 'Three four,' gave names recall others. still insisted, 'good valued appeal proper. Laudiero, 192 304, 309, 85 132. Elliott, 163 11, 103. Mannix 140 250. hypothetical unproven conclusion, Little 401; Pittman 793; Filippelli 121; circumstances Marendi, 600, 107 1058. get newspaper article. Sloan 902. confined group fellow employees building inadmissible. Williams 382, 92, 509. procedure recommended Wigmore. analysis innovation emphasizes evolved pragmatic theoretical consistency. lay conversation admissible place; significant neighbors ready made, privately possibly unprobable fact—the reality arrest. From pretty certain draw based order conclusion unsupported untrue innuendo. illustrates Judge Hand's work explained least. Yet, paradoxes deficiencies, decent bounds. Stewart 70 101, 104 234; 121. 250; Josey 77 U.S.App.D.C. 321, 135 809; Spalitto 782, cited. Illinois, considering urged adopt, England.' 923, 924. Authorities collected Shull, 131 Or. 224, P. 237, 71 A.L.R. 1504. Act, & 62, Vict. c. 36. L.Q.Rev. 443, arrests. legislation, 194, et seq. Pennsylvania statute, Act 1911, P.L. 1, discussed amended, July 3, 1947, 1239, P.S. 711. recently Superior state. Commonwealth Hurt, Pa.Super. 232, A.2d 828. American Institute, promulgating 'Model Code Evidence,' includes comment, 'Character, whenever Rules, denotes laid proved. material matter, disputed fact.' Rule 304. sentence oversimplification view decisions reviewed. 21. overlooked carries corrective. caution bar imprudence unprofessional nature attacks resented Wellman, Art Cross Examination (1927) p. 167 211, statement established Page, 365 524, 845. North Carolina 'general vices virtues,' Shepherd, 220 N.C. 377, 379, S.E.2d 470; Holly, 485, 492, S.E. 450. Arizona followed adopted today, Smith State, Ariz. 229, 196 recently, reversing stated source include Viliborghi 275, 285, P.2d 210.

Category: 0