CAAF will now resolve the service split over whether the Government may rebut opinion evidence of good character with extrinsic evidence of specific instances of misconduct. The granted issue in Bridges is:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION WHEN HE ADMITTED PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 3 OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION BECAUSE IT WAS EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE OF SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT OFFERED TO REBUT AN OPINION. See United States v. Hallum, 31 M.J. 254 (CMA 1990).
United States v. Bridges, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0701/CG (C.A.A.F. Nov. 16, 2007).