Mr. Michelson's Argumentative Analysis

Objections that the prosecution and/or defense should have been made. On page 1, line 22 the objection would be that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. Leading to the questioning of the witness to his point of view, of his reputation is the witness' statement of the point of view that is not permitted. On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement of the witness with respect to Mr. Michelson's “reputation is very good in the community...who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against anyone”; Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. The witness' declaration is testimony to prove the Mr. Michelson had a good name in the community. That testimony is not permitted. Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 401(a) shows also that it would be immaterial as Mr. Michelson was arraigned with the crime of bribery and not provoking altercations or having ill will is not relevant to the bribery that Mr. Michelson had been charged. Under cross-examination on page 2, line 22 that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 404(b) “That evidence

Michelson was always within the law. Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 613(b), it is permitted as “extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only.” That the witness professed that Mr. Michelson was always acting within the law, although he was once charged with smoking marijuana. The witness overstepped his bounds in his assessment of Mr. Michelson. On page 3, line 1, that it was claimed that Mr. Michelson committed a crime but was found to be not guilty. In despite that, Mr. Michelson's arrest could have damaged his good standing within his