Court Opinion

ID: 9466287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:10:51.546894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:38.780094
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in affirming Vanderbosch’s conviction.
There was no error in Judge Daly’s ruling that the government would be permitted to bring out on its cross-examination of the defendant that he had recently been convicted by a federal jury in Vermont of an identical conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Rule 609(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence 1 lays to rest any doubts which may arise from reading our opinion in United States v. Semensohn, 421 F.2d 1206 (1970), decided several years before the Rules of Evidence became effective in July, 1975.
Moreover, it is clear under Rule 609(e) that, although lack of finality in the conviction may be shown by the defendant, the pendency of an appeal does not render the evidence inadmissible. Consequently, nothing turns on whether the defendant was convicted after a trial or by his plea of guilty.

. Rule 609 provides, in pertinent part:
(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.
* * * * * *
(e) Pendency of Appeal. The pendency of an appeal therefrom does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of the pendency of an appeal is admissible.