IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CRIMINAL NO. 04-506-2

KEVIN JENKINS

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of 2006 , upon consideration

of the Motion To Bar Impeachment Use of Defendant’s Prior Convictions it is hereby

ORDERED and DECREED that the Government is precluded from introducing any prior

convictions of Defendant to impeach his credibility if he testifies.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________

J.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CRIMINAL NO. 04-506-2

KEVIN JENKINS

MOTION TO BAR IMPEACHMENT USE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR

CONVICTIONS

Defendant, Kevin Jenkins, by his attorney, Peter A. Levin, respectfully moves this

Honorable Court to rule in advance of trial on the admissibility in evidence of any prior

convictions of defendant, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609. In support thereof he

asserts the following:

 1. The indictment in this matter charges the defendant with conspiracy to commit armed

bank robbery, conspiracy to commit carjacking, carjacking and using a firearm during a crime

of violence.

2. The government has advised counsel that defendant has prior arrests in 1996 for

possession of weapons, in 1997 for robbery, and in 1998, 1999, and 2002 for narcotics

related offenses. Some of these arrests resulted in convictions.

3. The convictions are too old to be admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609

(b) and are not crimes which involves dishonesty or false statement in the context of Rule

609 (a) (2).

4. The government has not notified counsel of any other prior convictions of defendant so

these would be the only convictions in question.

5. The defendant wishes to testify in his defense, but if these convictions are admitted into

evidence to impeach his credibility they will unfairly prejudice his defense by inflaming the

jury to convict him as a “bad person.”

6. If he does not testify in his defense because it will result in admission of his previous

convictions, the jury will be deprived of the full truth to consider.
 7. Federal Rule of Evidence 609 (a) (1) forbids proof of these convictions because their

probative value on the issue of credibility does not outweigh their prejudicial effect to the

defendant.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Kevin Jenkins, respectfully requests this Honorable

Court to enter an Order decreeing that the Government is precluded from introducing any

prior convictions of Defendant to impeach his credibility if he testifies.

Respectfully submitted,

2865

Peter A. Levin

1927 Hamilton Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

(215)563-3454

Attorney for Defendant,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CRIMINAL NO. 04-506-2

KEVIN JENKINS
MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO BAR

IMPEACHMENT USE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS

Kevin Jenkins, by his attorney, Peter A. Levin, respectfully moves this Honorable

Court to enter an Order in advance of the trial out of the presence of the jury that the

government cannot use convictions to impeach the defendant’s credibility if he testifies. The

introduction of the convictions will be substantially more prejudicial than probative.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609, the Court may not allow impeachment

by a prior conviction unless the conviction involved “dishonesty or false statement,” Rule

609 (a) (2),or unless it was for a felony and the prosecution shows that the probative value

of admitting this evidence on the issue of credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the

defendant, Rule 609 (a) (1) . Defendant’s convictions for narcotics offenses as well as

weapons offenses do not involve “dishonesty or false statement”, and therefore a 609 (a)

(1) determination is required. See G.V. I. v. Bedford, 671 F.2d 758, 760-61 (3d Cir.

1982).

Admission of these convictions would be more prejudicial to the defense than

probative of credibility. They do not relate to credibility at all unless one accepts the

proposition rejected by Congress in its reformulation of Rule 609, namely that every felony

conviction is probative of credibility. Courts have warned “against the danger that the jury

will be inflamed by the evidence to decide that because the accused was the perpetrator of

other crimes, he probably committed the crime for which he is on trial as well. United States

v. Goodwin, 492 F. 2d 1141, 1150 (5th Cir. 1974), cited with approval in United States v.

Cook, 538 F.2d 1000, 1003 (3d Cir. 1976).

The Court must exclude evidence about the defendant’s convictions because of

their inflammatory tendency to have the jury convict the defendant because he is a “bad

person.” The convictions have little value as to credibility.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an

Order decreeing that the Government is precluded from introducing any prior convictions of
Defendant to impeach his credibility if he testifies.

Respectfully submitted,

2865

Peter A. Levin

1927 Hamilton Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

(215)563-3454

Attorney for Defendant,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Peter A. Levin, Esquire, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Motions

have been served upon by hand delivery to:

Jennifer Chun, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

615 Chestnut Street

Suite 1250

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Date: 4-10-06
2865

__________________

Peter A. Levin, Esquire