Court Opinion

ID: 9465452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:46:50.000055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:11.262409
License: Public Domain

FAY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
This is a weak dissent in a very close case.1 I agree wholeheartedly with Parts I and II of the majority opinion. While agreeing with those principles of law set forth in Part III, I respectfully dissent from the conclusion.2
*278A review of the record convinces me that the able trial judge complied with the announced test as to the admissibility of the defendant’s prior military conviction for larceny and did not abuse his discretion. Concluding that such evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes, I would affirm the convictions.
Certainly there is a “presumption against the use of an over-age conviction.” Rule 609(b) clearly requires the trial judge to carefully analyze the conviction involved to ensure that the “probative value . substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.” In my opinion, the record in this case reflects just such scrutiny.
The majority finds an abuse of discretion since the “defendant’s credibility had already been well impeached.” It classifies the evidence of the military conviction as unnecessary “icing”. My crystal ball is not that clear nor am I willing to play Monday morning quarterback in such a close call.

. Paraphrasing my brother’s dissent in United States v. McCain, 556 F.2d 253, 256 (5th Cir. 1977) (Judge Gee dissenting).

. In computing the ten year period prescribed in Rule 609, it appears we are bound by the panel opinion in United States v. Cohen, 544 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1977) unless and until modified by the en banc court. The rule is stated as being that period running from the date of conviction or release from confinement, whichever is later, to the commencement of trial. If writing on a clean slate, it seems to me the most appropriate closing date would be that of the next succeeding alleged offense rather than commencement of trial. Any other formula serves to reward the felon for delaying prosecution by any means possible. If prior convic*278tions lose their probative value for impeachment purposes because of ten years of “good behavior”, that is the period we should measure — the period of unquestioned good behavior.