## Facts

- Frederick Leon Dotson, a convicted felon on parole, was prosecuted for receiving three handguns (a Colt .38 revolver, a Colt .45 pistol, and a 9 mm Walther pistol) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(h) and 922(a).
- Dotson did not dispute receiving the firearms but asserted a necessity defense, claiming repeated threats after his release from prison required him to obtain weapons for protection.
- Dotson testified and called supporting witnesses, including a police officer, to corroborate the alleged threats and explain why he obtained the firearms.
- In rebuttal, the government called several investigating agents who offered opinion testimony that Dotson and his witnesses did not have good character for truthfulness.
- The agents’ opinions were largely based on their investigative work rather than sustained acquaintance, articulated observations, or other explained bases for assessing character for truthfulness.
- The district court admitted this opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a) without requiring an adequate predicate for the opinions.
- The jury convicted Dotson on all counts, and he received a five-year sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a) by admitting government agents’ opinions that Dotson and defense witnesses were untruthful without an adequate factual foundation.
2. Whether admitting such unsupported credibility-opinion evidence was prejudicial, given that Dotson’s necessity defense depended largely on the credibility of his testimony and supporting witnesses.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed Dotson’s convictions.
- The court held the district court erred by allowing agents to opine on Dotson’s and defense witnesses’ truthfulness without an adequate predicate for those opinions.
- The court concluded the error was prejudicial because credibility was central to the necessity defense.
- The court distinguished one agent’s opinion testimony as admissible because it had a sufficient factual basis, but found the remaining agents’ opinions improperly admitted.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 608(a) permits reputation or opinion evidence about a witness’s character for truthfulness only when the witness offering the opinion has a sufficient foundation for forming it.
- Opinion testimony about truthfulness must be rationally based on the witness’s perception (Rule 701) and supported by personal knowledge (Rule 602); investigative involvement alone is not an adequate substitute.
- Courts must guard against unsupported credibility opinions by law-enforcement witnesses that effectively convey an official conclusion that the defendant and defense witnesses are lying, particularly where credibility is the core contested issue.
- Even when character-for-truthfulness opinion evidence is permitted, its admissibility depends on the demonstrated basis for the opinion, not the witness’s role or title.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reversed Dotson’s felon-in-possession convictions because the district court admitted investigating agents’ Rule 608(a) opinions that Dotson and his witnesses were untruthful without an adequate foundation, and the resulting credibility attack was not harmless in a case where the necessity defense rose or fell on witness credibility.


United States v. Dotson, 799 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1986)