Court Opinion

ID: 9483191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:14:01.455949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:29.208155
License: Public Domain

SELYA, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I join enthusiastically in much of Judge Young’s impeccably reasoned opinion. In respect to the court’s discussion of Count II of the indictment, however, my enthusiasm is tempered by my fundamental disagreement with the premise of United States v. Barrett, 539 F.2d 244 (1st Cir.1976). Nevertheless, because this panel is duty bound to follow Barrett whether or not we regard it as good law, see Fournier v. Best Western Treasure Island Resort, 962 F.2d 126, 127 (1st Cir.1992) (in a multi-panel circuit, newly constituted panels are customarily bound by prior panel decisions squarely in point); United States v. Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446, 1449 (1st Cir.) (similar), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 441, 116 L.Ed.2d 460 (1991), I concur in the judgment. I write separately, however, to express my thoughts as to why Barrett bears overruling and as to how Fed.R.Evid. 613(b) was meant to operate.
This court decided Barrett soon after the Federal Rules of Evidence took effect. Since that time, most (though not all) of the circuits have rejected Barrett's rationale, deciding instead that the adoption of Rule 613(b) did not abolish the traditional common law requirement of laying a suitable foundation prior to the introduction of impeachment evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1344 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —,—, —, 112 S.Ct. 349, 911, 952, 116 L.Ed.2d 288, 811, 117 L.Ed.2d 120 (1991); Gong v. Hirsch, 913 F.2d 1269, 1274 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Bonnett, 877 F.2d 1450, 1462 (10th Cir.1989); United States v. Lynch, 800 F.2d 765, 770 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1022, 107 S.Ct. 1907, 95 L.Ed.2d 513 (1987); United States v. Cutler, 676 F.2d 1245, 1249 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. DiNapoli, 557 F.2d 962, 964-65 (2d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858, 98 S.Ct. 181, 54 L.Ed.2d 130 (1977). But see Wammock v. Celotex Corp., 793 F.2d 1518, 1521-23 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. McGuire, 744 F.2d 1197, 1203-04 (6th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 1866, 85 L.Ed.2d 159 (1985). In my estimation, the majority rule is sounder than the view espoused in Barrett. It works to avoid unfair surprise, gives the target of the impeaching evidence a timely opportunity to explain or deny the alleged inconsistency, facilitates judges’ efforts to conduct trials in an orderly manner, and conserves scarce judicial resources. At the same time, insistence upon a prior foundational requirement, subject, of course, to relaxation in the presider’s discretion if “the interests of justice otherwise require,” Fed.R.Evid. 613(b), does not impose an undue burden on the proponent of the evidence.
It is my hope that this court, for the time being, will take pains not to expand the Barrett principle; and that, moreover, in a proper case, the en banc court will revisit Barrett and bring our interpretation of *960Fed.R.Evid. 613(b) into line with the majority of our sister circuits.