Opinion ID: 787077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Admission of the Bankruptcy Petition into Evidence

Text: 13 Goodman first argues that her conviction must be reversed because the court improperly allowed the government to introduce evidence of other acts in the form of her 1996 bankruptcy petition. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). 3 However, the government did not introduce the petition as evidence of an act at all. Rather, the challenged evidence came in as a statement used to rebut Goodman's denial of her personal credit problems in 1996: 14 Q. [by the government] And whatever the causes of the problems may have been, the problem essentially was that you owed a lot of money personally at that time? 15 A. Not a lot of money, no. 16 Q. Isn't it true, Miss Goodman, that on May 24th, 1996, you owed well over $100,000 to creditors? 17 A. Not to my knowledge. 18 Once Goodman denied owing over $100,000 to creditors, 4 the bankruptcy petition — containing a prior, sworn, contradictory statement made by a party witness — became admissible under three evidentiary rules. See Fed.R.Evid. 613 (prior statement of a witness); Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) (prior inconsistent statement given under oath subject to a penalty of perjury); Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2) (admission by a party opponent); see also United States v. Parsons, 646 F.2d 1275, 1277-78 (8th Cir.1981) (admitting bankruptcy petition as an admission by a party opponent under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)). 19 Goodman relies on United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir.1999). We find the analogy unpersuasive. In that case, we reaffirmed our rejection of `[p]overty as proof of motive' and stated that a petition for bankruptcy is not in and of itself evidence of a specific and immediate financial need such that it would be relevant to showing [a defendant's] motive. 172 F.3d at 1129 (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 172 F.3d 1104, 1108-09 (9th Cir.1999)). At trial in Bensimon, the government also argued that the bankruptcy petition showed that Bensimon was trying to start a new after bankruptcy by assuming the identity of [another]. Id. We held that the district court, in admitting the bankruptcy petition for that purpose, had overlooked the prejudice that may occur when the prosecution in a criminal case is allowed to introduce evidence of a prior illegal, fraudulent act by the defendant. Id. 20 Neither Bensimon's prohibition against evidence of poverty as proof of motive nor its concern about the use of bankruptcy petitions as evidence of a prior illegal, fraudulent act by the defendant is implicated here. The government did not argue that bankruptcy motivated Goodman's illegal conduct. Nor did the government argue that there was anything fraudulent or illegal in Goodman's initial filing, or later withdrawal, of the bankruptcy petition. Instead, the petition was introduced for the narrow purpose of showing a prior inconsistent statement. 21 In these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the bankruptcy petition. 22