Opinion ID: 3013361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ard

Text: At the time that she testified at Zemba’s trial, Beaken was a participant in Pennsylvania’s Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (“ARD”) program.1 The pending charge against her was for hindering apprehension of a suspect. Zemba was prohibited from questioning Beaken about her ARD status. This prohibition stemmed from some confusion surrounding the ARD issue. Defense counsel initially sought to introduce Beaken’s ARD status as a prior conviction under Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The District Court properly refused to allow its introduction on the ground that ARD was not a conviction. There followed a conversation between Judge Bloch, the prosecutor and the defense counsel, during which colloquy the prosecutor stated that “I believe [Ms. Beaken’s ARD] has lapsed and she is no longer under that.” In fact, Beaken still was under ARD. Under the order granting ARD, Beaken had been sentenced to nine months probation, which period was extended by twelve months (until June 2002) following a technical violation of the terms of her probation. In his reply brief, Zemba 1 ARD is a pretrial diversionary program that suspends formal criminal proceedings before a conviction on the condition that the defendant will do some act or fulfill some requirements. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 300 et seq. If a defendant successfully completes the program, the charges are dismissed upon an order of court. Pa.R.Crim.P. 319. Should the defendant fail to complete the ARD program, he or she waives the appropriate statute of limitations and right to speedy trial and may be prosecuted as initially charged. Pa.R.Crim.P. 301, 312. 3 stated that “[a]t this point of [sic] the cross- examination, the defense argument appears to have been undermined by the government’s erroneous representation that the ARD period had lapsed. Thus, cross-examination for bias stemming from the witness’ existing probation was foreclosed by the government’s misrepresentation as to the status of the ARD probation.” The following day, after Beaken had completed her testimony, and defense counsel had realized that Beaken was still in fact under ARD, defense counsel moved to be permitted to inform the jury of this fact. He stated, “[a]lthough Your Honor ruled it’s not a conviction under 609, the fact of being on probation provides bias for a person to cooperate with the Government in the fear of fabrication or being adversely treated while on probation.”2 The Court replied, “[t]here’s no evidence that she’s been promised anything by the Government, and you may not tell the jury that.”