Opinion ID: 543684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impeachment of Sellers

Text: 27 Sellers challenges the district court's ruling permitting the Government to impeach him on cross-examination with the fact that he had left or been fired from a job as a security officer with the Georgia Power Company because he had claimed expenses to which he admitted he was not entitled. This incident was plainly probative of Sellers's truthfulness under Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). Sellers argues that because it occurred eight years before trial, its relevance was outweighed by unfair prejudicial impact. He also contends that it was unfair for the district court to admit this evidence while excluding the evidence of Hill's dissembling to the hospital staff. See Part II(A)(1)(i) above. We find the two situations quite distinct, however, especially given the vastly greater potential for unfair prejudice in Hill's case. 13 We are therefore unable to find any abuse of discretion by the district court on this issue.