United States v. Bonner (2002)

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2002 · Evidence

302 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 2002)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 608(a)Rule 608(b)Rule 404(a)witness bolsteringrehabilitationcharacter evidenceopening the door

Facts

After James Kettles died, his widow Angelita was entitled to VA survivor and dependent benefits. Bonner offered to help her obtain those benefits, secured a power of attorney, redirected VA payments to a post office box and later to his own bank account, and caused the VA to issue a duplicate $33,000 check that he deposited. At trial, Bonner claimed he was helping Angelita and repaying himself for loans, while Angelita claimed he exploited her and stole her benefits. Bonner's appeal focused on evidentiary rulings involving testimony about Angelita's character, rebuttal evidence about Bonner's own character, testimony about Bonner's refusal to speak to an investigator after voluntarily providing documents, and exclusion of a defense witness offered only for impeachment.

Issue

Did the district court commit reversible evidentiary error by admitting testimony that rehabilitated Angelita's credibility, allowing rebuttal evidence about Bonner's character, permitting testimony about Bonner's selective silence when questioned about voluntarily produced documents, and excluding extrinsic impeachment testimony from a defense witness?

Rule

Evidence offered solely to bolster a witness's credibility is improper unless the witness's character for truthfulness has first been attacked, after which rehabilitation evidence is admissible under Rule 608(a). If a defendant introduces favorable character evidence about himself, he opens the door to prosecution rebuttal under Rule 404(a)(1). Under Davenport, when a defendant voluntarily offers exculpatory statements or their equivalent and then refuses to elaborate, the prosecution may introduce that selective silence at trial. Under Rule 608(b), extrinsic evidence is inadmissible when offered solely to impeach a witness on a collateral matter and lacks an independent ground for admission.

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 benefits-fraud trial in Milwaukee, the government's key witness, Rosa Mendes, testifies that the defendant redirected her payments. In opening statement and on cross-examination, defense counsel suggests Rosa tailored her testimony because investigators cleared her and her benefits resumed after she agreed to cooperate.

May the prosecution call Rosa's longtime neighbor to testify that Rosa has a reputation for honesty?

Explanation. Rule 608(a) permits evidence of a witness's truthful character only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked. An implication that the witness gained advantages from cooperating with the government is an attack on credibility that opens the door to rehabilitation.