Opinion ID: 2777568
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: When the Other Act Occurred

Text: Richardson’s prior conviction was thirteen-years-old at the time of his arrest in connection with the present case. In this Circuit, “[t]here is no absolute maximum number of years that may separate a prior act and the offense charged.” United States v. Ismail, 756 F.2d 1253, 1260 (6th Cir. 1985). One panel found a ten-year-old conviction too stale to be probative, United States v. Freeman, 412 F. App’x 735, 745 (6th Cir. 2010), while another panel approvingly cited to a Fifth Circuit case upholding the admission of an eighteen-year-old conviction, Love, 254 F. App’x at 517. In any event, the remoteness in time of Richardson’s prior conviction at least weighs in favor of exclusion.