This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Michelson (D) claimed that he was entrapped by a federal officer. He called witnesses to testify about his good character and reputation in the community. The prosecution asked these witnesses if they were aware that D had been arrested 27 years ago. In response to direct questioning, D stated that he had been arrested 20 years ago. The judge met with the two parties before this line of questioning occurred to ensure that this was an actual event that would have resulted in some comments among acquaintances. He then instructed the jury that they should ignore the actual event and focus on the witness' opinion of D's reputation. D was convicted. D challenged the right of the prosecution so to cross-examine his character witnesses. He appealed, claiming that the judge should not have allowed this cross-examination with questions of “have they heard about.” The Court of Appeals held that it was permissible.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.