#Badger a witness synonym trial#

It is enough for our purposes to say that determination of the issue turned on whether the jury should believe the agent or the accused. The defendant, as a witness on his own behalf, admitted passing the money, but claimed it was done in response to the agent's demands, threats, solicitations, and inducements that amounted to entrapment. Large payment by accused to the agent for the purpose of influencing his official action. In 1947, petitioner Michelson was convicted of bribing a federal revenue agent. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court. A character witness may be cross-examined as to knowledge of rumors of defendant's prior arrest, whether or not it culminated in a conviction.

#Badger a witness synonym trial#

In the circumstances of this case and in view of the care taken by the trial judge to protect the rights of the defendant, permitting the prosecutor to ask this question was not reversible error. Occurrence, and he carefully instructed the jury as to the limited purpose of this evidence. 469 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner was convicted in a federal district court of bribing a federal officer. Notwithstanding the difficulty which a jury might have in comprehending instructions as to the limited purpose of such evidence, a defendant who elects to introduce witnesses to prove his good reputation for honesty and truthfulness and for being a law-abiding citizen has no valid complaint about the latitude which existing law allows to the prosecution to meet this issue by cross-examination of his character witnesses.

That the inquiry concerned an arrest 27 years before the trial did not make its admission an abuse of discretion in the circumstances of this case - especially since two of the witnesses had testified that they had known defendant for 30 years, defendant, on direct examination, had voluntarily called attention to his conviction of a misdemeanor 20 years before, and since no objection was made on this specific ground. It is not only by comparison with the crime on trial, but by comparison with the reputation asserted, that a court may judge whether the prior arrest should be made the subject of inquiry.

In this case, the trial judge was scrupulous to safeguard the practice against any misuse. Therefore, rarely and only on clear showing of prejudicial abuse of discretion, will appellate courts disturb rulings of trial courts on this subject. Both the propriety and abuse of hearsay reputation testimony, on both sides, depend on numerous and subtle considerations, difficult to detect or appraise from a cold record. The defendant may introduce evidence tending to prove his good reputation, but, if he does so, it throws open the entire subject, and the prosecution may then cross-examine defendant's witnesses to test their credibility and qualifications, and may also introduce contradictory evidence. The law does not invest the defendant with a presumption of good character it simply closes the whole matter of character, disposition and reputation on the prosecution's case in chief. The trial judge had satisfied himself in the absence of the jury that the question related to an actual The defendant's character witnesses testified that they had known the defendant for from 15 to 30 years, and that he had a good reputation for 'honesty and truthfulness' and for 'being a law-abiding citizen.' In cross-examining them, the prosecutor was permitted to ask whether they had heard that the accused had been arrested 27 years previously for receiving stolen goods. In a trial in a federal court for bribery of a federal officer, the defendant admitted the payment, but claimed that it was induced by the officer, and the case hinged on whether the jury believed the defendant or the officer.