Michelson v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1949 · Evidence

335 U.S. 469 (1949)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencecharacter evidencecross-examinationreputationhave you heardarrestgood faith basistrial court discretion

Facts

Michelson was tried for bribing a federal revenue agent, and his defense depended on whether the jury believed him or the agent. Michelson called five witnesses to testify that his reputation for honesty, truthfulness, and being a law-abiding citizen was very good or that they had never heard anything against him. On cross-examination, the prosecution asked several of those witnesses whether they had heard of Michelson's 1927 conviction and whether they had heard that in 1920 he had been arrested for receiving stolen goods. Outside the jury's presence, the trial judge required the prosecutor to confirm in good faith that the arrest had actually occurred, and the judge repeatedly instructed the jury that the questions were admitted only to test the character witnesses' standards and knowledge.

Issue

When a criminal defendant introduces evidence of his good reputation, may the prosecution cross-examine the defendant's character witnesses by asking whether they have heard that the defendant was previously arrested, even if the arrest did not lead to conviction, involved a different offense, and occurred many years earlier?

Rule

If a defendant puts his reputation in issue by offering character witnesses, the prosecution may, in the trial court's discretion, cross-examine those witnesses with 'Have you heard?' questions about relevant rumors or reports, including a prior arrest whether or not it resulted in conviction, to test the witnesses' knowledge, qualifications, and credibility. The inquiry must concern matters that bear on the reputation traits asserted, must be asked in good faith, and is subject to limiting instructions and discretionary control by the trial judge.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal fraud trial in Denver, Lena Ortiz does not call any character witnesses. During its case-in-chief, the prosecutor calls a former coworker from Aurora to testify that Lena has a bad reputation in the community for honesty.

Is the prosecutor's reputation evidence admissible?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the prosecution generally may not open with evidence of the defendant's evil character, prior trouble with the law, or ill name to show a probability of guilt. The subject is opened only if the defendant elects to introduce good-character evidence. Because Lena offered no character evidence, the prosecution's case-in-chief reputation testimony is inadmissible.