Opinion ID: 525688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vigliatura's Prior Convictions and Arrests

Text: 29 On direct examination, Vigliatura's counsel inquired about his past convictions and charges. R4-25-26. Vigliatura admitted to four felony convictions, 3 and a probation violation. He also claimed that Nolf set him up for a recent arrest for possession of and trafficking in cocaine. Vigliatura twice affirmed that he had no other convictions or charges brought against him. 30 During Vigliatura's cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned him extensively about his prior criminal record. The prosecutor inquired about the factual details underlying his drug convictions and Nolf's involvement in the two burglary convictions. Vigliatura also admitted that he was convicted of the recent cocaine trafficking charge. In addition, the prosecutor cross-examined Vigliatura about his recent arrest for conspiracy to commit burglary, a charge which did not result in a conviction. Vigliatura's counsel made no objections. 31 Because Vigliatura did not object to the admission of his prior convictions and arrests, we must review the errors under the plain error standard. Plain error consists of error which when examined in the context of the entire case, is so obvious that failure to notice it would affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Russell, 703 F.2d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir.1983); see Chilcote, 724 F.2d at 1502 n. 3. 32 Once a criminal defendant chooses to testify, he places his credibility in issue as does any witness. United States v. Lollar, 606 F.2d 587, 588 (5th Cir.1979). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, a defendant's credibility is subject to impeachment through evidence of his prior convictions. The mere existence of an arrest is not admissible. United States v. Labarbera, 581 F.2d 107, 108-09 (5th Cir.1978). Vigliatura admits that on direct examination his trial counsel opened the door by questioning him about prior charges and convictions (some of which were clearly inadmissible under Rule 609). He claims, however, that the prosecutor's cross-examination went beyond permissible bounds. 33 Vigliatura primarily relies upon United States v. Tumblin, 551 F.2d 1001 (5th Cir.1977), where this Court reversed a defendant's conviction because the prosecutor upset the delicate balance between the permissible and impermissible uses of prior conviction evidence. Over the defendant's repeated objections, the prosecutor exceeded a reasonable scope of questioning during cross-examination by not just reaffirming the defendant's prior convictions but by emphasizing: 34 that defendant had been released from confinement for one conviction for only a few weeks when he was again arrested for a criminal violation, that he had held no regular job in the last couple of years because he had been serving so much time in jail on previous convictions, that indeed for many years prison had been the only home the defendant had known. 35 Id. at 1004. During closing argument, the prosecutor again reemphasized the theme that the defendant was a man who had spent most of his young life committing and serving time for crimes, rather than being gainfully employed. Id. The Court held that the prosecutor's actions constituted reversible error. Id. at 1005. 36 We do not find the Tumblin imbalance in this case. First, our review of the trial transcript reveals that Vigliatura's trial counsel opened the door on direct examination. Vigliatura's direct examination testimony, which delved into both his past convictions and charges, broadened the permissible scope of the prosecutor's cross-examination. Further, Vigliatura's testimony regarding his recent arrest on drug charges and his repeated reaffirmance that there were no other past or current convictions or charges against him, opened him up to impeachment by the prosecutor regarding such convictions or charges. Second, although the prosecutor treaded a fine line in this case by emphasizing the factual basis of Vigliatura's past convictions and further eliciting the fact that Vigliatura had been arrested for conspiracy to commit burglary, a thorough examination of the entire record establishes that Vigliatura received a fair trial and the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceedings though blemished have not been disfigured. Based on the plain error standard, we conclude that the prosecutor's inquiry into Vigliatura prior arrest, although improper, does not amount to reversible error. 37 AFFIRMED.