## Facts

- Solomon Michelson was tried in federal court for bribing a federal revenue agent.
- Michelson admitted paying the agent but asserted entrapment, claiming the payment resulted from the agent’s demands and inducements.
- On direct examination, Michelson disclosed a 1927 misdemeanor conviction involving counterfeit watch dials.
- Cross-examination also revealed that, in a 1930 license application, Michelson falsely denied any prior arrest or summons.
- Michelson called five character witnesses who testified that his reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and being law-abiding was very good, based on long familiarity with him.
- On cross-examination of four character witnesses, the prosecutor asked whether they had heard about Michelson’s 1927 conviction and, over objection, whether they had heard he was arrested in 1920 for receiving stolen goods.
- None of the witnesses had heard of the 1920 arrest.
- Outside the jury’s presence, the judge required a factual basis for the arrest inquiry; the prosecutor produced a record establishing the arrest had occurred.

## Issues

1. Whether, after a defendant introduces reputation evidence of good character, the prosecution may cross-examine the defendant’s character witnesses by asking whether they have heard of prior arrests, including arrests not resulting in conviction.
2. Whether permitting cross-examination about a decades-old arrest was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal due to unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed Michelson’s conviction.
- When a defendant introduces evidence of good reputation, the prosecution may cross-examine character witnesses with “have you heard” questions about prior arrests and reports relevant to the claimed reputation.
- Such cross-examination is permissible to test the credibility, knowledge, and basis of the witness’s reputation testimony, not to prove the prior misconduct as substantive guilt evidence.
- The trial court did not commit reversible error by allowing inquiry about the 1920 arrest, given the court’s verification of a factual basis and limiting instructions.

## Legal Principles

- In a criminal case, the prosecution generally may not introduce bad-character evidence in its case-in-chief to show propensity.
- A defendant may place character in issue by offering reputation testimony; doing so opens the subject and permits rebuttal and credibility testing.
- Reputation testimony is assessed through what is said in the community; cross-examination may probe whether the witness has heard reports of specific acts or arrests that would bear on the asserted reputation.
- Cross-examination about prior arrests is permitted even without a conviction, provided the trial court is satisfied the incident is not unfounded.
- The scope and permissibility of this cross-examination rests largely in the trial court’s discretion; appellate reversal is warranted only on a clear showing of prejudicial abuse.
- Limiting instructions are important to confine the jury’s use of the inquiry to evaluating the character witness’s testimony rather than as proof of the defendant’s bad acts.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a defendant who offers reputation evidence of good character opens the door to prosecution cross-examination testing that reputation, including “have you heard” questions about prior arrests with a verified factual basis, and that allowing such inquiry here was within the trial judge’s discretion and not reversible error.


Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948)