Opinion ID: 415604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Government's Reluctance to Provide Further Information on the Convictions

Text: 21 Under Rule 609(a)(1), the prosecution must show that the probative value of a prior conviction outweighs the prejudice to the defendant. If it cannot do so, the evidence is excluded. See 120 Cong.Rec. 40,891 (1974) (statement of Rep. Hungate, House floor manager for the Rules of Evidence) (the Conference Committee placed the burden on the proponent of such evidence to show that ... the probative value of the conviction outweighs its prejudicial effect); United States v. Smith, 551 F.2d 348, 359-60 (D.C.Cir.1976). 22 A major subtheme in this case is the prosecution's attempt to minimize its burden of persuasion by insisting that the district court should not look behind the name and date of a conviction to determine how much probative value it has. 22 The government did not introduce any background information on the prior convictions at the first trial, stating that it had none. Moreover, during the three-week interval between the first and second trials, it made no effort to obtain any background information despite Judge Oberdorfer's request for it at the first trial. At the second trial, Judge Oberdorfer again asked for more information and the government resisted, claiming that the information was unnecessary: 23 THE COURT: Have you tried [to get the case jackets in the prior convictions]? 24 MR. CORNELL: No, I have not. 25 THE COURT: Well, see if you can. 26 MR. CORNELL: One of the reasons is we don't view it as necessary.... 27 THE COURT: ... [T]he Court of Appeals will probably have these, and I don't see any reason why I should have to-- 28 MR. CORNELL: The Court of Appeals will not have the jackets. 29 THE COURT: Well, they will if [defense counsel] puts them into the record in support of his motion for new trial. See if you can get them; not necessarily today .... MR. CORNELL: I will endeavor to get them. 23