Document: 490 U.S. 504 109 S.Ct. 1981 104 L.Ed.2d 557 Paul GREEN, Petitionerv.BOCK LAUNDRY MACHINE COMPANY. No. 87-1816. Argued Jan. 18, 1989. Decided May 22, Syllabus In petitioner Green's product liability action against respondent Bock, the manufacturer of a machine that injured Green, Bock impeached testimony by eliciting admissions he had previously been convicted burglary and related felony. After jury returned verdict for Green argued on appeal District Court erred denying his pretrial motion to exclude impeaching evidence. The Appeals summarily affirmed Court's uling, following Circuit precedent established in Diggs v. Lyons, 741 F.2d 577. held, inter alia, Rule 609(a)(1) Federal Rules Evidence—which specifies evidence witness has felony "shall" be admitted purpose attacking witness' credibility "only if" court determines probativeness outweighs its prejudice "to defendant"—mandates admission impeachment purposes civil plaintiff's prior convictions, Rule's specific command forecloses judicial exercise discretion under 403, which authorizes exclusion relevant if probative value is substantially outweighed danger unfair prejudice. Held: requires judge permit with convictions regardless ensuant or party offering testimony. Thus, did not err allowing learn through cross-examination was felon. Pp. 509-527. (a) text ambiguous respect applicability cases. By using restrictive phrase defendant," plain language appears only weighing defendant, but also compel automatic admissibility conviction detrimental plaintiff. An interpretation would deny plaintiff same right impeach an adversary's it grants defendant unacceptable; therefore, cannot mean what says as far trials are concerned. 509-511. (b) history leading enactment law establishes Congress intended accused criminal case should protected from balancing requirement set out 609(a)(1). 511-524. (c) 609(a)(1)'s witnesses mandatory such into evidence, overrides judge's general discretionary authority 403 balance 524-526. 845 1011 (CA3 1988), affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed concurring judgment, post, p. 527. BLACKMUN, dissenting opinion, BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, 530. Joseph M. Melillo, Harrisburg, Pa., petitioner. Thomas D. Caldwell, Jr., respondent. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 This presents question whether Evidence let litigant convictions. Because Courts have answered different ways, we granted certiorari resolve conflict. 487 1203, 108 2843, 101 881 (1988). 2 While custody at county prison, obtained work-release employment car wash. On sixth day work, reached inside large dryer try stop it. A heavy rotating drum caught tore off arm. brought this Laundry Co. (Bock), machine. At trial testified instructed inadequately concerning machine's operation dangerous character. conspiracy commit burglary, both felonies. Bock. ruling. 3 Appeals' disposition followed 577 1984), cert. denied, 471 1078, 105 2157, 85 513 (1985). Writing panel majority, Judge Maris, who headed Advisory Committee proposed federal code Court,1 concluded 609 mandated He relied legislative establishing govern proceedings. F.2d, 581. may pursuant 4032 order circumvent 609(a)(2)'s all pertaining dishonesty—often called crimen falsi evidence—be admitted. Ibid. 609's command, wrote, Id., 582. situation 609(a) allows bar when unduly case.3 Maris comment: 4 "[T]he scope subject widespread controversy strongly held divergent views. We felt compelled give rule effect meaning require. recognize issue some cases produce unjust even bizarre results. past manslaughter automobile, example, can little relevance totally matter. But amended eliminate these possibilities injustice, must done those amend rules, Supreme Congress. . It us enforcers guise construing it." 5 Dissenting, Gibbons acknowledged "snippets history" show four Members anticipated might interpret require irrelevant context. 583. Yet remained unpersuaded whole "so ridiculous result." Instead, attributed Rules' silence regarding plaintiffs "legislative oversight." And noted other Circuits concluded, contrary "that feature does apply cases." Placing use outside reach discretion, declared, "makes no sense whatever." 6 Both majority opinions convey dissatisfaction onvictions witnesses, especially plaintiffs. Indeed, criticism result longstanding widespread.4 Our task deciding case, however, fashion deem desirable identify fashioned. begin considering extent answers before us. Concluding cases, then seek guidance overall structure. 7 * provides: 8 "General Rule. For witness, crime shall elicited public record during (1) punishable death imprisonment excess one year convicted, admitting prejudicial (2) involved dishonesty false statement, punishment." 9 terms allow any felonies involving greater than defendant."5 follows prosecution "shall admitted" without balancing. 10 commands well trial. literal reading odd like this. Assuming least minimal value, given case—but surely none Bock's—balancing according strict inevitably leads conclusion admissible. fact, construction Rule, always 11 No matter how be, accept defendant.6 Sixth Amendment Constitution guarantees certain fair rights enjoyed prosecution, while Fifth lets choose testify contrast, litigants share equally protections Amendment's Due Process Clause. Given liberal discovery inapplicability protection self-incrimination, need prove their almost depositions Denomination plaintiff, moreover, often happenstance based first nature suit.7 felon tends shift jury's focus worthiness litigant's position moral worth himself.8 unfathomable why subjected risk. Thus agree Seventh concerned, "can't says."9 Campbell Greer, 831 700, 703 (1987). 12 Out agreement flow courses, each turning "defendant." word interpreted encompass criminal, parties not. See Shearson Lehman/American Express, Inc., 625 F.Supp. 382, 383 (ED Pa.1985) (dictum). read connote event civil, E.g., Howard Gonzales, 658 352 (CA5 1981). Finally, "defendant" refer case. See, e.g., Campbell, 703. These choices spawn corollary question: inapplicable authorize cases? issues, examine law. II 13 common person competent witness. disqualification arose part punishment crime, later being rationalized basis unworthy belief." J. Weinstein & Berger, W instein's ¶ 609[02], 609-58 (1988) (citing Wigmore, § 519 (3d ed. 1940)). As evolved, absolute gradually replaced allowed misdemeanor conviction.10 face scholarly courts moved toward more flexible approach.11 14 1942, American Law Institute cases12 "its risk will create substantial undue ."13 Model Code Evidence, 303 (1942); see 106. could witness-accused unless introduced "evidence sole supporting credibility." 106(3). 15 decade Bar Association endorsed further limited impairment crimes "involving statement." National Conference Commissioners, Uniform 21 (1953). 106, adduced credibility. too afforded deemed prejudicial. 2, 45. 16 contemporaneous congressional governing stated: 17 "No incompetent testify, either proceedings, reason having fact affect credit upon aliunde. ." D.C.Code Ann. 14-305 (1961). 18 provision Columbia traditionally McGowan, 1970 Social Order 1. reviewing defendant's challenge grand larceny housebreaking charges, said "may," "shall," admitted; required impeachment. Luck United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 156, 348 763, 768 (1965). effect, conditioned kind expressly provided Code.14 n. 8, 768, 8. Far welcoming innovation, Department 1969 changing overrule Luck, provide admitted."15 19 Amid over distinguished appointed recommendation Judicial States submitted March draft rules used proceedings.16 6-09, forerunner 609, mention discretion.17 reasoned "[d]angers prejudice, confusion misleading jury, waste time, surprise" inherent misconduct "tend disappear diminish" conviction. Preliminary Draft Proposed Committee's Note, 46 F.R.D. 161, 297 (1969). Having considered five options—including doctrine—for reducing risks witness-accused, found acceptable, so "adheres traditional practice witnesses." 299. 20 Nonetheless, embraced doctrine second draft. Issued 1971, version authorized determination "substantially prejudice."18 Revised 51 315, 391 (1971). specified primary concern witness-accused; "risk [convictions] ordinary scarcely comment." id., 392. proposal broad enough protect defendants, nonparty Cf. ibid. (safeguards 609(b), (c), (d) witnesses). Code, revision met resistance. urged supplant strict, Code. Moore 609.01[1.-7], VI-111. Senator McClellan objected adoption reinstatement earlier draft.19 22 backed off. requested, third final 1969. 56 183, 269-270 (1973). Note explained: 23 "The weight generally, regard particular offense, grade offense. view accepted amendment Whatever merits [other] views, drafted accord Congressional policy manifested legislation." 270. 24 forwarded November 20, 1972. 25 House Representatives proposal. Subcommittee Judiciary recommended similar present 609(a), except avoided current reference "the defendant." Rather, prescribing open-ended "unfair prejudice" draft.20 26 departed recommendation, preparing statement.21 Motivating change were concerns about deterrent wish "even accused," relation veracity. H.R.Rep. 93-650, (1973), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 1974, pp. 7051, 7084, 7085. Although Report focused defendants litigants, express encompassed nonaccused witnesses. 27 advocated approach favored intermediate opposed bill floor. Four pointed applied cases.22 voted adopt Committee. 28 Senate path. evidence; permitted "prejudicial witness."23 thus litigation. full Senate, prodded McClellan, reverted submitted. 120 Cong.Rec. 37076, 37083 (1974). 29 Conflict between bill, embodying approach, resolved Committee.24 conferees' compromise—enacted 609(a)(1)—authorizes "but makes perfectly clear forth draft, unlike versions, witnesses: 30 (such injury reputation community) rejected element weighed dete mining admissibility. judgment nondefendant trier much possible." H.R.Conf.Rep. 93-1597, 9-10 (1974), 7103. 31 Accord, Linskey Hecker, 753 199, 201 (CA1 1985). Equally intention shield accused, prosecution,25 Impeachment stated, "should excluded where improperly influencing outcome persuading convict record." supra, 10. 32 emphasis context, Report's convict" individual explanations compromise,26 raises doubt pertinence litigants. discussions suggest two kinds prejudice—the elects Nowhere influence trial's outcome. omission lends support Gibbons' oversight" caused balance, Diggs, 583, number considerations persuade meant weigh defendant. 33 contending changed settled burden showing legislature change. Midlantic Bank New Jersey Environmental Protection, 474 494, 502, 106 755, 760, 88 859 (1986). accorded Departures occurred overtly interpretation, 763 (1965), codes, uch Rules. itself explicitly adds safeguards circumscribing common-law rule. F.R.D., 270-271. unsubstantiated assumption oversight produced ambiguity respecting hardly demonstrates silently overhaul NLRB Plasterers, 404 116, 129-130, 92 360, 368-369, 312 34 To various drafts they mitigate defendants. Any cause voicing lest unjustly diminish eyes Representative Hogan declared ought measure value.27 Furthermore, Dennis—who advocating limiting recognized trials—not debated floor, took conference emerged. 2377-2380, 39942, 40894-40895 factors indicate textual limitation resulted deliberation, oversight.28 35 Had conferees desired easily. Presumably access precursors, particularly prepared Committee, Alternatively, own include parties.29 They simple III 36 That end our inquiry. next decide governs impeachment, exercised benefit parties, leaves available 37 Several courts, scant analysis interrelation 609(a)(1), turned cases.30 Gibbons, labeled "sensible approach." Indeed be. Prodigious scholarship highlighting irrationality unfairness unrelated veracity indicates order. If otherwise, judges adhere decision. 38 statutory usually there Ginsberg Sons, Inc. Popkin, 285 204, 208, 52 322, 323, 76 L.Ed. 704 (1932). provision, comes play though pertain 218. evinces 403's included language.31 obstacle because structure enacted resolves question. 39 states admitted."32 With subpart (2), widely agreed imperative, coupled absence language, bars 403.33 Subpart (1), felonies, language; accordingly, subsection either.34 40 argument loses force considers contains (a)(1), sections (b), older (d), juvenile adjudications. latter balances, general, Fed. Evid. 1101(b). Earlier (a)(1) contained provisions comprehended types witnesses; these, shown, deliberately eliminated advocates balances within aspects Rule—crimen whose defendant—must proper effect. admitted, 403. relying depart 609.35 41 summary, hold error suit learned i 42 Affirmed. 43 judgment. 44 confronted here statute which, literally, produces absurd, perhaps unconstitutional, result. alternative avoids consequence; determine excludes 45 I think entirely appropriate consult materials, including background adoption, verify seems unthinkable (civil receive prejudice) indeed unthought of, justify departure purpose, suffice observe counsel provided, nor discovered, shred anyone ever assumed disposition. goes beyond Approximately four-fifths substantive devoted examining evolution 1942 1953 1965 overruling it, Subcommittee, Reports, so-called floor debates 609—all evident merely confirming determining what, precisely, mean. find believe handful aware interesting Code; them (if any) voted, understanding relationship referenced statements debates—statements marginally relevant, minute details, relatively inconsequential legislation. books determined, shown understood larger Congress; rather most context usage, likely words (not citizens it), compatible surrounding body integrated—a compatibility benign fiction, assume mind. historical material discussed combined, lead me suggest. 47 analyze brief, follows: 48 rationally (or constitutionally) prejudice-weighing Since produced, ourselves snippet absurd result, confidently (as normally be) 49 alternatives "civil prosecutor, "criminal Quite obviously, last violence text. qualification contain but, others, ("plaintiff" "prosecutor") simply bear. adds, understandably omitted inadvertence—and sometimes normal conversation ("I defendants' rights"). consistent providing special cases.* 50 (3) described "structure Rules," ante, 525, addition am frankly sure that, despite lengthy discussion ideological history, reasons decision mine. respectfully decline join discussion, natural juridical importance matches prominence opinions—thus producing legal culture arguing assert "Congress said" something, now frequently mean, "Congress," committee report; pale recent brief say following: "Unfortunately, helpful. turn guidepost difficult area, language." Brief Petitioner Jett Dallas Independent School District, O.T.1988, 87-2084, 21. concur 53 whom MARSHALL join, dissenting. 54 attracted attention short life. due small poor inartful drafting. H. Bendix, Moore's Practice 609.14[4], V-148 (2d 1988); Foster, Civil Context: Recommendation Reform, 57 Ford.L.Rev. 1, (1988); Younger, Three Essays Character Credibility Hofstra L.Rev. 7, 11-12 (1976); Savikas, Concepts Impeachment: Chicago Rec. (1975). 510-511, creates inescapable ambiguity. concludes face. Ante, 511. fully agree. 55 fail see, solve riddle inadvertent persuaded better consider faced party, just Applying prevented unnecessary inflammatory prevent results until repaired, reaches today, endorses " 524, ability A. majority's recounting 513-514, entitled very weight. often—and finally compromise Senate—much commentary cited versions enacted. item focuses 93-1597 Admittedly, supports position: mirrors emphasizing uses "convict" describe potential 9-10, draftsmanship Rule's, reliable indicator Congress' intent itself. 58 slipshod drafting clarity Conference's forte, prefer rely underlying reasoning Report, unfortunate choice words, ascertaining scope. treatment standard consists single paragraph. noting concerned 7103 states: 59 possible. Such 60 determined sufficient nothing directly do truthfulness honesty. dealing drew line: consider. 61 observed, "prejudice" who, course, revealed public. clear, life courtroom "presents trial." solution supervision: 62 expressed exists type litigation, threatens best expressing preference whenever chance justice denied direct bearing truthfulness. short, suggests "prejudice party," revelation reputation. B 63 correct, SCALIA notes interpreting defendant" [a] categories well, "least text," 529, "violence" interpolation deletion existing words. logic rationale offered adopted. 64 Certainly possibility troubling potential, less real Unlike presumption "provid[e] themselves specify construed secure fairness administration truth ascertained proceedings justly determined" 102. achieve end. C 65 adopts limits face, additional danger: preted trap unwary. "Rule's 509. One enacting evidentiary precise posed questions. "A codification wrought supplies lawyer's questions simpler, comprehensible, easily lawyer discover codification." Introduction, Symposium: 251, 252 (1984). Relying attorney representing instruct client's take stand, believing pass admitting" "outweighs effect." view, reliance counsel's part. Now every takes error, changed. theory easy presume busy practicing keeps abreast decisions, "real world" obviously implications today relies Criminal, Civil, Appellate Procedure, look controlling jurisdiction, adopted away provides. D 66 interpretations neither completely language. l tigants—i.e., defendants—who interpretation—which favor—also departs somewhat extending supervision class litigants—i.e., parties. Neither one. proper, dictates 102, construe avoid "unnecessary hardship," Burnet Guggenheim, 288 280, 285, 369, 370, 77 748 (1933), sensible sources listed 512-513, 11. 67 decided Machine Company designed sold dangerously defective adequate warnings. felon, program little, anything, issues. know precisely refused compensate him sad excruciating loss arm, influenced record. conceivably intended, endorse. 68 my hope corrected delay, preferably form over, least, bear encouraging efforts direction appear underway, 523, 29, damage draftmanship soon undone. 69 dissent. 162 "Exclusion Relevant Grounds Prejudice, Confusion, Waste Time "Although needless presentation cumulative evidence." 609(b) confers years old, factor More century ago, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Massachusetts, wrote case: "[W]hen proved ground disbelieving proof affords readiness evil supposed show. alone asked infer lie thence lied fact. tendency mistaken, perjured himself, solely proposition bad character credit." Gertz Fitchburg Railroad Co., 137 Mass. 77, 78 (1884). Questions relevancy abate, 11, infra, persisted after 1975 Evidence. Shows M/V Red Eagle, 695 114, 118 1983); 609.02, VI-134 VI-135 ed.1988) (hereinafter Moore); Louisell C. Mueller, 316-319 (1979) Louisell); Prior Convictions Offered Trials: Interaction 1063 behalf. S. Saltzburg K. Redden, Manual 364-365 ed.1982) Saltzburg) (suggesting result). harmful occasionally questioning 609(a)'s asymmetry Murr Stinson, 752 233 (CA6 1985) (per curiam ); Calhoun Baylor, 646 1158 (CA7 1987). Declaratory interpleader actions, instance, invert expected designations U.S.C. 2201 (1982 ed., Supp. V); Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 22. Shows, (prior alleging injuries employer's negligence "presented Shows' claim, him, deserving justice"). Ford.L.Rev., 5, 21-22; 1067. VI-148 ("[S]ubsection deficient, sensibly cases"); 316, 324, ("It incongruous since distinguish among litigation"). VI-134; E. Cleary, McCormick 43, 93 ed.1984) Cleary). Judge, William Taft, Ohio "It attacked former conviction, withhold permission Baltimore O. R. Rambo, F. 75, 79 1893). chief. Wounick Hysmith, 423 873 1970) (Circuit convictions); Oklahoma ex rel. Nesbitt Allied Materials Corp., 130, 133 (WD Okla.1968); Taylor Atchison, T. S.F.R. 283, Mo.1962). seminal article, Dean Ladd questioned rule's "premise, doing act designated organized society indication testimonial unreliability," barring Ladd, Tests—Current Trends, 89 U.Pa.L.Rev. 166, 176, 191 (1940). Criminal Defendants Conviction, (hereafter McGowan); Comments A.L.I., 128-129 (1942). Among seemed strain conventional Learned Hand, antitrust nolo contendere plea, wrote: "[S]o jurisdictions Where competency 43(a) admonishes admit it; course plea 'operative' facts; true guilty verdict. Whether attempt practicable limit witness's credibility, whether, not, open us." Pfotzer Aqua Systems, 779, 785 (CA2 1947). Pasternak Pan Petroleum 417 1292 (CA10 1969) (exercising state rule); Ruffalo's Trucking Service, Ben-Franklin Insurance Pittsburgh, 243 949 1957) (holding permits discretion). blend ng justified "[a]ll stating admissible stated." 303(2). panel, McGowan time stand defense. statute, room sound circumstances unfold There helped letting hear story foregoing [sic] opportunity fear founded believes is, contexts; utility field." (1965) (emphasis original) (footnote omitted). Section 133(b) Reform Procedure Act 1970, Pub.L. 91-358, 84 Stat. 551, 14-305(b) (1967 IV 1971), "for offense offered, (A) (B) statement (regardless punishment) (I), 161 (1969); 11-01(b), 417. provided: "(a) GENERAL RULE. 295-296. contendere, punishment, prejudice." (1971) supplied). "If Crime overturned," letter chairman, "I decide." Supplement Hearings Subcommitt e Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., formulation Special Laws "For year, 7084. Compare ibid., 391. sent General Rule.—For 2374 Seeking substitute version, "amendment sides litigation—the Government prosecutions 2376 Denn s, defending shepherded onto maintained "does man applies Under gentleman amendment, ago you ask although you." 2377. difficulty here," Wiggins foresaw, "is complex problem trying care problem. [F]urther necessary spin separate deal total rule, uncertainty inequity. 2379. Supporting Hogan's Lott commented: "[I]t essential application defense, well. [A] tell truth." 2381. S.Rep. 93-1277, 7061. actual point, stating: 37076 40894 (remarks Rep. Dennis) ("[I]n conference, came up 100 percent, slight advance thought ."). Member "[N]ow cross government previous convictions; way. Only going limited. (1974) Dennis). 94; Louisell, 325. Dennis, stressed 2377 explained benefits made said: "[Y]ou examination, convince court, government, important law, defendant; alone." (emphases debate awareness application. compromise, reiterated "that, happens 40895 added). "Suppose governmental instituted damages, malicious destruction property. committee's formulation, involve statement. Yet, hypothetical seem carrying private war society. Should antisocial believability juries law-abiding unblemished records? "Personally individuals capable engaging outrageous acts adversely reflecting thieves. 2376. ("[T]his emerged deliberate, yet uneasy opposing positions sharply-divided Congress"). promulgated inserted witness" place 314, 310-315; 147-156 (Supp.1988) (detailing States' revisions 609). Recently, Committees preliminary provides Amendments Bankruptcy Meanwhile, Association's recommends deleting requiring "determin[e] Evidence: Fresh Review Evaluation extensive reaching occurs Donald Wilson, 847 1191 1988). frequently, employ resolving Jones Board Police Comm'rs, 844 500 (CA8 pending, 88-5468; Abshire Walls, 830 1277 (CA4 1987); Radtke Cessna Aircraft 707 999 Czajka Hickman, 317 114 1983). Hannah Overland, 795 1385 1986) (applying mentioning 609(a)(1)); Wierstak Heffernan, 789 968 (same). Illustrative colloquy Henry Friendly, Chief Second Circuit: "Judge FRIENDLY. [O]f overriding thinks discussing that. "Mr. HUNGATE. Would rules? today. remain became effective? here. check. DENNIS. follow discretion. Maybe still something out. sure. section referring. Congressman [Dennis'] point good You problem: Does hat subject? somebody argue, dealt specifically don't answer be." 251-252 2381 Lott) adopted, available). 705. process 514, intended. Contra, 366. Kuecker, 740 496 1984); Wong, (CA3) ), 464 842, 140, 132 (1983); Cleary 95; Wright, 416, 554 (1982); strains modifying containing proviso, subsection, reveals invoke residual discretion"); Accord 706 ("[W]here, taken pains conditions (convictions), district specification naught"). Acknowledging ambiguity, dissent "any party" because, says, "extend[s] litigants" favor, "takes litigants." Post, 534-535. side dispute lay claim generosity begging power impeach. say—and 511-512, 517—that [the convictions] dissent's

Category: 8