2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-20-2009 

# U SA v . G i lmore P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3139

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . G i lmor e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1956. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/19561 P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 3139

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. W ALT ER GI LM ORE a /k /a BU T CH , A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

f o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- cr - 00848 D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le R o b ert B

. K u g ler

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL

. A

. R

. 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber9, 2008 B e f o re : M C K E E , S M IT H , a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J anuary20, 2009)2 R ol and B

. J arvi s , E s q. 1315 W al nutSt r eet Sui t e 1326 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 C ou nself

or App el l an tW

alter G i lm ore C h risto p h e r J. C h ristie G eor ge S. L eone J ohn F. R om ano O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet N ew ark, N J 07102 C ouns el f orAppel l ee the U

ni t ed Stat es of

A m er i ca OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. T hi s cas e pr es ent s us w i t h a t extbook example o f how t r i al couns el m aypr oper l yus e past cr i m i nal conductt o i m peac h a w i t nes s ’ t es t i m onybycontrad i ct i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1 2 9 1 an d 18 U

. S. C

. § 3742. Fort he r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. O n J une 26, 2006, A ppel l ant W al t er G i lm o re cal l ed C es arSever i no, a s us pect ed drug deal er , and r eques t ed thatt hey3 m e e t in p e rso n . A f

ter th e m e e tin g , S e v e rin o c o n ta c ted Ju lio L ebr on and as ked hi m t o del i vera k il o g r am of cocai ne fr om Phi l adel phi a, PA , t o C amden, N J. L ebron a gr eed. U pon arriving in C am d en , L eb ron w en t t o S ev erino ’s ho u se w h ere Sever i no t es t ed the coc ai ne i n L ebr on’ s pr es ence . T h a t ev e n in g , G ilm o re c a lled S e v e rin o a n d to ld h im to

“ b ri n g 2 9 9 c e n t[ ] s o d a s a n d c o m e to m yh o u s e .” (J .A . 3 2 .) Sever i no t hen l efthi s hom e c arry i ng t he coc ai ne i n a bl ack pl as t i c gr ocerybag. A ft er arr i vi ng at G i l m or e’ s hous e, Sever i no w al ked i n w i t h a bl ack pl as t i c gr ocerybag, s t ay ed foraboutfi ve m in u tes , an d lef

t w ith o u t it

. W hen Sever i no r etur ned home, he pai d L ebr on $20, 000 fo r th e c o ca ine. L e b ro n too k the m o n ey , p u t i t i n h is w ife’s p u r s e , a n d b e g a n t o d r i v e b a c k t o P h i l a d e l p h i a . A l o n g t h e w a y, pol i ce s t opped Lebr on ’s ca rfors peedi ng, and r ecove r ed $20, 418 fr om L ebr on’ s w i fe’ s pur s e. O n J ul y26, 2006, a gra n d juryi ndi ct ed G i l m or e and L e b ro n e a c h o n o n e c o u n t o f k n o w in g ly a n d in ten tio n a lly c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te a n d to p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d is tr ib u te 500 gr am s o rm or e of c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C

. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) , and 846. E i ght day s l at er , agent s fr om t he Dr u g En f

o r c e me n tAdmi n i s t r a t i o n ( “ DEA ” ) a rr e s t ed G i l m or e and se ar ched hi s hom e pur s uantt o val i d w arr ant s . T he agent s r ecove r ed a c el l phone, a ce l l phone bi l l , and drug par aphernal i a, butno coca i ne.4 G ilm o re w e n t to trial o n F e b ru a ry1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . D u rin g h is t r i al , t he G overnm ent offe r ed evi dence t hatG i l m or e’ s J une 26, 2006 phone ca l l s and meet i ngs w i t h Sever i no concern ed t he pur chas e of co ca i ne. D E A agent s t es t i fi ed that , as par tof an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o Se v e r i n o ’ s d ru g - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s , t hey co n d u cted su rve ill an ce d u ri n g the m ee ti n g s b etw ee n G il m o re and Sever i no, and r ecor ded the var i ous p h o n e conve r s at i ons di s cus s i ng t he tr ans act i on pur s uantt o a court
- author i zed w i r et ap. L ebr on, w ho byt hen w as cooper at i ng w i t h t he G o v e rn m e n t, t e stif

ied th a t h e p u rc h a se d th e c o c a in e in Phi ladel phi a atSever i no’ s r eques t , br oughti tt o C amden, and w ai t ed i n Sever i no’ s hous e as Sever i no l eft w i t h t he coc ai ne and re tu rn e d w ith $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 . D E A S p e c ial A g e n t D a rrin D e l V isc io t e s t i f i e d t h a tGi l mor e ’ s r e f

e r e n c e t o “ t wo 9 9

- c e n ts o d a s ” w as code f ora ki l ogr am of cocai ne. T he G overnm ent al s o poi nt ed t o G i l m or e’ s phone r ecor ds , w hi ch evi dence d num er ous phone cal l s t o and fr om num ber s as s oci at ed w i t h Sever i no even af te r J une 26, 2006. G i l m or e t es t i fi ed on hi s ow n beh alf a nd deni ed buy i ng anycoca i ne fr om Sever i no. G i l m o re di d notdenyt hathe had m u l t i pl e meet i ngs and phone c onver s at i ons w i t h Sever i no on Ju n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 6

. In ste a d , G ilm o re tes tifie d th a t th o se p h o n e c a lls a n d m e e tin g s c o n c e r n e d a lo a n th a t S e v e rin o h a d m a d e to G i l m or e. G i l m or e al s o t es t i fi ed t hathi s r eques tfort w o 99- cent so d a s w a s n o t co d e f

o r a d ru g tr a n sa c tio n , b u t th a t h e a c tu a lly w anted Se veri no t o b ri ng him t w o tw o-l i t er s od as.5 D ur i ng hi s di r ect exami nat i on, G i l m or e and hi s at t or ney had the fol l ow i ng excha nge: Q : A ft ery ou w er e i ndi ct ed i n t hi s cas e, y ou gota cha nce t o go t hr ough t he evi dence ? A : U h- huh. Q : T hatt heyhad aga i ns ty ou t o s how t h at y ou w er e a d ru g d e a ler , co rre c t? A : Y es. Q : A nd w e w entt hr ough t hatevi dence , di dn’ tw e? A : Y es , w e di d. Q : A nd y ou s ee a nyevi dence i n this c as e thaty ou’ r e a d rug d ea ler, sir ? A : N o , I d id n ’t s e ll n o d ru g s . I n e v e r d id

. (J. A

. 7 4 3

– 4 4 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). B efor e begi nni ng i t s cr os s - exami nat i on, t he G overnm ent advi s ed the D i s t r i ctC our tt hat i t i nt ended t o as k G i l m or e aboutO n M ar ch 12, 1992, G i l m or e pl eade d gui l t yt o 1) 1 pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e contr ol l ed dange r ous s ubs t ance s , and 2) pos s es s i on of cont rol l ed dange r ous su b sta n c e s w ith in ten t to d istrib u te w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f e e t o f a sc h o o l. H e w as par ol ed on J ul y 5, 1995, and di s char ged fr om par ol e on M ar ch 3, 1998. 6 tw o p rio r f

e lo n yd ru g d is tr ib u tio n c o n v ictio n s in o rd e r to 1 con t radi ct h i s sw orn st at em ent that he nev er s old drugs. G i l m or e obj ect ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our toverrul ed the obj ec ti on, st at i ng t hat i tw as “going to perm i tt he g ov ernm ent t o cross e x a m in e [ G ilm o re ] o n th a t co n v ictio n , to c o n tra d ict h is s t at ementt hathe’ s never s ol d drugs . ” ( J

. A

. 745. ) T he D i s t r i ct C our t , how ever , w oul d notal l ow t he G overn m entt o offe rt he cert ifi ed j udgm ent s i nt o evi dence unl es s G i l m or e deni ed the c o n v ictio n s. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso in f o rm e d th e p a rties th a t it w oul d issue a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur yt o us e the convi ct i ons onl y for cr edi bi l i t y purpos es and notas evi dence of g u ilt

. Pur s uantt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng , the G overnm ent cross -exam i ned G i l m ore abo ut hi s pri or drug co nv i ct i on s: Q : M r . G i l m or e, y ou t es t i fi ed on di r ectt haty ou never so ld d ru g s, c o rre c t? A : Y es , I di d.7 Q : I s n’ ti ta fa ct , M r . G i l m or e, t haty ou w er e convi ct ed her e i n t he S u p erior Courtof C amden C ount yon M ay22nd, 1992 of pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r ibut e [c ont r ol l ed danger ous subst ance s ] ? A nd pos s es s i on of [c ont r ol l ed danger ous s u b s t a n c e s ] wi th i nt entt o di s t r i but e w i t hi n a thous and f e e t o f a sc h o o l? A : T hatw as a l ong t i m e ago. Q : B ut y ou w ere conv i ct ed o f sel l i ng drugs? A : Y es , I w as , a l on g t i m e ago, and I change d m yl i fe a ro u n d w h e n I g o t o u t. (J.A . 7 8 8 .) T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro v id e d a lim iti n g in stru c tio n to t h e j ur yfol l ow i ng t hi s t es t i m ony , and r epea t ed thati ns t ruct i on i n i t s fi nal char ge. T he G overnm entdi d notoffe ranyaddi t i onal pr oof of the convi ct i ons i nt o evi dence

. O n February 22, 2007, t he j ur yfound G i l m or e gui l t yof c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te a n d to p o s s e ss w ith th e in ten t to d is tr ib u te 50 0 g ram s o r m o re o f c o ca ine. B ef o re G il m o re’s s ent enci ng, t he G overnm entr eques t ed a tw o- l evel enhanc ement for obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce pur s uantt o Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 3 C 1

. 1 b e c a u s e o f G i l m o r e ’ s a l l e g e d l y p e r j u r i o u s t e s t i m o n y, w hi ch i ncl uded hi s deni al o f anyi nvol vementi n anydrug t r ans act i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the enha ncement , w hi ch i ncr eas ed G i lm o r e’ s advi s or yr ange of i ncar cer at i on undert heW e ar e sat i s fi ed t hat G i l m or e’ s ot hergr ounds forappea l 2 a re w ith o u t m e rit, a n d d o n o t r e q u ire e x ten siv e d isc u ss io n . F irst, G ilm o re a ss e rts th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t u n la w f u llyw ith h e ld cert ai n i nfor m at i on abouta part i cul arphone number , buthe has n o t sh o w n h o w a n yo f th is in f o rm a tio n w a s m a ter ial to h is p re p a ra tio n o f

a d e f e n se , o r f a v o ra b le to h im o n th e iss u e o f h is g u ilt o r p u n is h m e n t. See B r ady v. M ar yland , 3 7 3 U

. S. 83 (1 9 6 3 ); F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 6

. S e c o n d , th e G o v e rn m e n t’s d e lay i n see k ing an ind ict m en t ag ains t G il m o re a n d it s fa il u re to rec o rd t he i n- per s on m eet i ngs b etw een G i l m or e and Seve r i no ar e not s o “sho ck ing, out r ageous , and cl ear l yi nt ol er abl e” a s t o be an “outr ageous l aw enfor cementi nves t i gat i ve t echni que” thatr i s es to th e le v e l o f a d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. N ol an- C ooper , 155 F. 3d 221, 230–31 ( 3d C i r . 1998)

. T hi r d, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n al l o w ing Spec i al A gentD el V i s ci o, an expe r i ence d drug i nves t i gat or , t o t es t i fyas a n e x p e rt o n th e m e a n in g o f c o d e d d ru g la n g u a g e . See U ni t ed S tates v. W

at s on , 2 6 0 F. 3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 6

– 0 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 )

. T hat

8 S en tenc ing G u idelines to 8 7 to 1 0 8 m o n ths. T h e D istri ct C o u rt t hen sent ence d G i l m or e t o 90 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed b yf iv e y e a rs o f

su p e rv is e d re lea se . G ilm o re f iled a tim e ly appea l of hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . II. G il m or e ar gues t hathi s convi ct i on s houl d be vac at ed b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlya d m itt e d e v id e n c e o f h is p r i o r f e l o n y d ru g c o n v i c t i o n s a t t r i a l

. W e r e v i e w th e D i s t r i ct 2G i l m or e di s agr ees w i t h t he G overnm entaboutw hetherhe us ed code i s of no cons equenc e. Four t h, G i l m or e’ s t es t i m ony deny i ng i nvol vementi n anydrug cons pi r acy an d offe r i ng an a ltern a tiv e e x p lan a tio n f o r h is c o rre sp o n d e n c e s w ith S e v e rin o is in d ir ectcontr adi ct i on w i t h t he j ur y ’ s gui l t yver di ct
. T he D i s t r i ctC our t di d not cl ear l y err i n fi ndi ng G i l m or e’ s t es t i m ony fal se, m at eri al , and m ade w i t h the w i l l ful i ntentt o p rovi de fa l se t es t i m ony , and, as a r es ul t , i m pos i ng a t w o- l evel en h ancem ent u n d e r S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e § 3 C 1 .1

. See U ni ted S tates v. Johns on , 302 F. 3d 139, 154 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. Fi fth, t h e D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s w i th in -G u id e lin e s e n te n c e is re a s o n a b le

. See Ri t a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S

. C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 (20 0 7 ). 9 C o ur t ’ s deci s i on t o excl ude oradmi tevi dence foran abus e of d iscreti o n , b u t w e h av e p lena ryrev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s in te rp re ta ti o n o f

th e F e d e ra l R u le s o f

E v id e n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mor nan , 4 1 3 F

. 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). A tt he out s et , w e r ej ect G i l m or e’ s as s er t i on t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tadmi t t ed the evi dence of hi s pr i orfel ony c o n v ic ti o n s f

o r a n im p ro p e r p u rp o se u n d e r R u le 4 0 4 (b ). R u le 4 0 4 (b ) p ro h ib its th e a d m iss io n o f e v id e n c e o f

p a st c rim e s “ to p ro v e the charact er of a person i n order t o s ho w act i on in c o n f o rm ityth e r e w it h .” F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 4 (b ). It d o e s n o t, h o w e ver, bar the u se of such evidence fo r other purpo ses. U ni t ed Stat es v. B oone , 279 F. 3d 163, 187 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. H er e, the D istri ct C o u rtp erm itted th e G o v e rn m e n t to a sk G il m o re a b o u t h is p rio r c o n v ictio n s f o r a n o th e r p u rp o se , n a m e lyto con t radi ctG i l m ore’ s t est i m on yt hat he nev er s old drugs.10 I m peac hm entbycontr adi ct i on i s a means o f “ p o l i c i ng t he

‘ defe ndant ’ s obl i gat i on t o s peak t he t rut h i n r es pons e t o pr oper ques t i ons . ’ ” Uni t e d

S t a t e s v . Gr e e n i d

ge , 4 9 5 F. 3d 85, 99 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

avens , 446 U

. S. 620, 626 ( 1980) )

. A ccor di ngl y , “‘ [w ] her e a de fenda ntt es t i fi es on di r ect exami n a t i o n r e g a r d i ng a s peci fi c fa ct , t he pr os ecut i on m aypr ove o n cro s s -ex am ination that the d ef en d an t l ied a s to tha t fac t. ’” Id

. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. G am bi no , 951 F. 2d 498, 503 ( 2d C i r . 1 9 9 1 ) )

. Rul e 6 0 7 o f t h e Fe d e r a l Rul e s o f Ev i d ence author i zes i m peac hm entbycontr adi ct i on, and Ru l e 403 governs its a p p lic a tio n . Id

. T her efor e, t he G overnm entm ayi m peac h a defe ndant ’ s t es t i m onyw i t h contr adi ct or yevi dence unl es s t he “pr obat i ve val ue [of

t he evi dence ] i s s ubs t ant i al l yout w ei ghed byt he dange rof unfa i rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the issue s , or m isle a d in g th e ju ry , o r b y c o n sid e ra tio n s o f u n d u e d e lay, w a ste of t i m e, orneedl es s pr es ent at i on of cumul at i ve evi dence

. ” Fed. R

. E vi d. 403. H e re , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc r e tio n in al l ow i ng the G overnm entt o as k G i l m or e abouthi s t w o pr i or f e lo n yd ru g c o n v ictio n s. G ilm o re ’s d e n ial c o n c e rn in g h is i nvol vementi n drug s al es w as unquali fi ed; he t es t i fi ed thathe “nev e r ” s ol d drugs . H i s pr i orconvi ct i ons i ndi cat e otherw i s e and ar e of undi s put abl e pr obat i ve val ue. C er t ai nl y , anys i m i l ar i t i es b e tw e e n th e n a tu re o f G ilm o re ’s p rio r d ru g c o n v ictio n s a n d h is a lleg e d lyc rim in a l co n d u c t in th is c a s e h a v e th e p o ten tial to c a u s e u n f

a i rp r e j u d i c e ; h o wev e r , t h e Di s t r i c tCou r tmi n i m i zed t hatpot ent i al bynotal l ow i ng the G overnm entt o ent ert he11 cert i fi ed j udgm ent s i nt o evi dence unl es s G i l m or e deni ed the convi ct i ons , and by t w i ce i s s ui ng a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on t o t he j u r y. O ur concl us i on i s cons i s t ent w i t h t hos e r eac hed byot her c o u rt s o f a p p e a l. See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ender , 265 F. 3d 4 6 4 , 4 7 0

– 7 1 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (p e rm itt in g th e g o v e rn m e n t to cr os s - exami ne the defe ndantaboutpr i ordrug t r aff i cki ng convi ct i ons beca us e s he t es t i fi ed on di r ectexami nat i on t hats he h ad n ev er so ld d rug s an d d id n o t st art using th e m u n til 1 9 9 2 ); U ni t ed States v. N

or t on , 26 F. 3d 240, 243–45 ( 1s tC i r . 1994) ( aff i r m i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o al l ow t he governm ent t o cr os s - exami ne the def endantabouthi s p ri orconvi ct i on for unl aw ful l ycarr y i ng a fi r earm aft ert he de fenda ntt es t i fi ed that “I n e v e rh a d a g u n i n myl i f e i n t h a tc a r . Or o n myp o s s e s s i on o r a n yw h e re ” ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 979 F. 2d 1024, 1032–35 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) ( al l ow i ng t he governm ent t o pr oduce a r ecor d of th e d e f e n d a n t’s p rio r c o n v ictio n f o r p o ss e ss io n o f

m a riju a n a in or der t o i m peac h t he defe ndant ’ s t es t i m ony t hat he h ad n ev er s een t he drug i n per s on)

. L i ke G i l m or e, t he def endant s i n eac h of thos e ca s es had pr i orconvi ct i ons t hatb eli ed t hei rbl anket deni al s on t he w i t nes s s t and of ever engagi ng i n conducts i m i l ar t o t he cha r ged conduc t
. L ike t he D i s t r i ctC our ther e, the tr i al cour t s i n eac h of t hos e cas es i s s ued a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on t o t he ju ry. B ender , 2 6 5 F .3 d a t 4 7 1 ; N or t on , 26 F

. 3d a t 2 4 5 ; Lopez , 9 7 9 F

. 2 d a t1 0 3 2

. L i k e t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l i n t h o s e c a s e s , we hol d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on her e.12 G ilm o re su g g e sts th a t th e a g e s o f h is c o n v ictio n s s h o u ld we i g h a g a i n s tt h e i ra d mi s s i b i l i t y . I n d e e d , Ru l e 6 0 9 ( b ) s e t s t wo condi t i ons on t he us e of a pr i or f elonyconvi ct i on t o at t ack the cr edi bi l i t yof a w i t nes s i f the convi ct i on i s over t en y ear s ol d: 1) i t s pr obat i ve val ue musts ubs t ant i al l yout w ei gh i t s pr ej udi ci al e f f e c t, an d 2 ) th e p ro p o n e n t m u st giv e a d v a n c e w ritten n o tice to th e a d v e rse p a rty th a t is su f f icie n t to g iv e th e a d v e rse p a rtya f a ir o p p o rtu n ityto co n testit s u se. F ed

. R

. E v id. 60 9 (b). R ul e 609, how ever , d o es notgovern her e. R ul e 609 contr ol s t he us e of pr i orfel ony convi ct i ons t o i m peac h a w i t nes s ’ gener al char act er fort rut hful nes s , buti m peac hm entby con t radi ct i on con cerns the u s e of e vi den ce t o im peach a w i t ness’ s p e c if ic te s tim o n y . See N

or t on , 26 F. 3d at 243–44 ( not i ng that “R ul e 609 evi dence i s admi s s i bl e fort he purpos e of a t t acki ng cre d ibil ityg en era ll y , ” b u t th at “[ p ]ri o r co n v ict io n s are a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le s 4 0 2 a n d 4 0 3 to c o n tra d ict s p e c if ic tes tim o n y ” ); Lopez , 979 F. 2d. at1033 ( “The fundame n ta l pr obl em w it h the appl i cat i on of ei t herR ul e 608 or609 i s t hat nei t herrul e appl i es ‘ i n det erm i ni ng t he admi s s i bi l i t yof r el evant evi dence i nt r oduced t o contr adi cta w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m onyas t o a m at er i al i s s ue. ’ ” ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) )

. A ccor di ngl y , pr i orfel ony convi ct i ons m or e than t en y ear s ol d m aybe us ed t o i m peac h by contr adi ct i on even i f theydo n o t sa t i s fyR ul e 609’ s bal anci ng a n d n o tic e c o n d itio n s . See Nort on , 26 F. 3d at 244 ( aff i r m i ng t he us e of a t w enty - ni ne y ear - ol d convi ct i on beca us e i tw as a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u les 4 0 2 a n d 4 0 3 ); Lopez , 9 7 9 F. 2d at 1032–34 ( uphol di ng t he us e of a s event een y ear - ol d convi ct i on13 t o i m peac h bycontr adi ct i on beca us e i tpas s ed R ul e 403 b a lan c in g ); s ee al

s o B ender , 265 F. 3d at470–71 ( al l ow i ng t he u se o f tw o tw e lv e y e a r-o ld c o n v ictio n s to im p e a c h th e credi bility o f a w itn ess w h o h ad m ad e “ m isl ea d ing ” statem en ts)

. N ot w i t hs t andi ng R ul e 609’ s i nappl i cabi l i t y , a pr i or convi ct i on’ s age m ay s t i l l bear on the R ul e 403 ana l y s i s r equi r ed fo r i m p ea ch m en t byco n tr ad ict ion

. F o r ex am p le, a c o n v ict ion ’s age mayaff

ecti t s pr obat i ve val ue. A w i t nes s ’ br oad deni al of ever s el l i ng drugs m akes any drug s al e convi ct ion p r obat i ve, re g a r d le ss o f

its a g e . A m o re lim ited d e n ial lik e “ I d o n ’t se ll drugs , ” how ever , m aym ake the pr obat i ve val ue of a pr i ordrug s al e convi ct i on depende nton it s age; t he more r ece ntt he convi ct i on, t he m or e proba t i ve i t w i l l be. A ddi t i onal l y , t he age of a c onvi ct i on m ayi nfl uence i t s pot ent i al forunfai rpr ej udi ce. U nder cert ai n ci r cumst ance s , an ol derconvi ct i on m i ghteven be le s s p re ju d ic ia l th a n a m o re re c e n t o n e . See N or t on , 26 F. 3d at 244–45 ( r em ark ing thatt he fa ctthat“[t ] he convi ct i on w as 29 y ear s ol d, and .

. . [def endant’ s] t r ans gr es s i on had occ ur r ed m anyy ear s ago, w hen he w as a ‘ veryy oung m an ’” he l ped m i n i m i z e t h e p r e

j u d i c i a l e f

f e c t o f t h e c o n v i c t i o n )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, a di s t r i ctj u d g e fac ed w i t h t he pr offe rof pas tcr i m i nal conduct to im p e a c h a w itn e ss ’ te stim o n yb yc o n tra d ictio n m a yp ro p e rly cons i dert h e ag e o f thatconvi ct i on us i ng s t andar d R ul e 403 anal y s i s , t hough w i t houtr es or tt o R ul e 609. H e re , the a g e s o f

G ilm o re ’s p rio r c o n v ictio n s o f f e r h im n o a id . A n yp rio r d ru g sa le c o n v ic ti o n , reg a rd les s o f a g e , is14 highl yprobati ve o f w hethe r G i l m ore “nev er di d” sel l drugs. A nyunfai rpr ej udi ce r es ul t i ng fr om t he age s of the pr offe r ed convi ct ion s d o es n o t sub stan ti all yo u tw eigh this pro b at i ve value. III

. G i l m or e’ s compl et e deni al of ever s el l i ng drugs opened the d o o r t o h is p ri o r f

elon y d rug co n v ict ion s. T h e D istri ct C o u rt di d notabus e i t s di s cret ion bygi vi ng t he G overnm ent p e rm iss io n to ste p th ro u g h th a t d o o r. A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.