Opinion ID: 2974809
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impeachment with Stale Conviction

Text: Petitioner contends that counsel’s failure to object to this evidence entailed ineffective assistance of counsel. The questions regarding Petitioner’s 1977 gun conviction violated a pretrial order that “the United States will not be allowed to use stale [more than ten-year-old] convictions for impeachment purposes” pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Order at 3. This court on direct review held that the Government’s elicitation of this evidence constituted plain error because it “was in direct contravention of the district court’s pretrial order and Rule 609.” 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024, at . However, this court held that reversal was not appropriate because “James fails the prejudice prong of the plain error test.” Id. -6- No. 03-6250 James v. United States Similarly, the district court ruled regarding Petitioner’s § 2255 motion that counsel’s failure to object “does not fall within the wide range of reasonably competent assistance demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Memorandum Opinion at 16. The Government contends on appeal that counsel’s failure to object could have been trial strategy, as counsel could have decided that “rather than object, and perhaps give the jury the impression petitioner was hiding prior convictions,” he would “permit[] the impeaching inquiry about the stale conviction in order” that Petitioner might “testify unequivocally that he had no convictions involving the use of guns or involving violence.” Appellee’s Brief at 33. The Government’s argument is unpersuasive. The failure to object to clearly inadmissible evidence of prior convictions is not shielded as “strategy” even where it is part of a carefully considered defense plan. See Coleman v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 118 F. App’x 949, 952 (6th Cir. 2004) (“The state’s argument that counsel’s failure to object to the remarks as part of a conscious strategy to use the prior conviction in [the defendant’s] favor does little to rebut the district court’s finding of ineffective assistance, and is supported by no case.”); Lovett v. Foltz, No. 88-1682, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13295, at -12 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 1989) (in case table at 884 F.2d 579) (“[W]hile ‘baring the soul’ may have been a reasonable defense theory, its use . . . does not excuse counsel’s failure to object to what might otherwise have been inadmissible evidence. ‘Strategy,’ whether labeled ‘baring the soul’ or with some other name, is not the equivalent of ‘opening the floodgates.’”). The district court was correct in ruling that “[t]his Court can conceive of no reason, other than inattentiveness, for an attorney to sit silent while a client is subjected to questioning that transgresses a court order as well as an evidentiary rule.” Memorandum Opinion at 16. -7- No. 03-6250 James v. United States However, counsel’s failure to object does not entitle Petitioner to habeas relief. The Government presented significant evidence against Petitioner, including the testimony of two eyewitnesses regarding threats and the firing of a shot at the Nashville Sound, and of a police officer regarding Petitioner’s furtive actions during the traffic stop. As this court held in United States v. Scisney, 885 F.2d 325, 327 (6th Cir. 1989), “Although ‘overwhelming’ might be too strong a word to describe the Government’s case, it was solid enough overall, and convinces us that any error involved in the brief reference to the prior . . . conviction was harmless as a matter of law.” Moreover, although the Government improperly elicited evidence of Petitioner’s 1977 conviction, evidence that Petitioner had been convicted of two counts of cocaine trafficking, had violated parole and been returned to prison, and had been convicted of introducing contraband into a jail, was properly admitted. This court held in Charles v. Foltz, 741 F.2d 834, 838 (6th Cir. 1984), in which two convictions were improperly elicited on cross-examination, but “at least six additional convictions” were properly before the jury, that “[i]t is . . . beyond a reasonable doubt that the two convictions elicited during cross-examination were harmless error.”