Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 839.0

529US3

Unit: $U58

[09-26-01 12:26:35] PAGES PGT: OPIN

764

OHLER v. UNITED STATES

Souter, J., dissenting

Previously convicted witnesses may testify honestly, but
some convictions raise more than the ordinary question
about the witness’s readiness to speak truthfully. A fact-
ﬁnder who appreciates a heightened possibility of perjury
will respond with heightened scrutiny, and when a defend-
ant discloses prior convictions at the outset of her testimony,
the jury will bear those convictions in mind as she testiﬁes,
and will scrutinize what she says more carefully. The pur-
pose of Rule 609, in making some convictions admissible to
impeach a witness’s credibility, is thus fully served by a de-
fendant’s own testimony that the convictions occurred.

It is true that when convictions are revealed only on
cross-examination, the revelation also warns the factﬁnder,
but the timing of their disclosure may do more. The jury
may feel that in testifying without saying anything about
the convictions the defendant has meant to conceal them.
The jury’s assessment of the defendant’s testimony may be
affected not only by knowing that she has committed crimes
in the past, but by blaming her for not being forthcoming
when she seemingly could have been. Creating such an
impression of current deceit by concealment is very much
at odds with any purpose behind Rule 609, being obviously
antithetical to dispassionate factﬁnding in support of a sound
conclusion. The chance to create that impression is a tacti-
cal advantage for the Government, but only in the majority’s
dismissive sense of the term; it may affect the outcome of
the trial, but only if it disserves the search for truth.

Allowing the defendant to introduce the convictions on
direct examination thus tends to promote fairness of trial
without depriving the Government of anything to which it
is entitled. There is no reason to discourage the defendant
from introducing the conviction herself, as the majority’s
waiver rule necessarily does.