Court Opinion

ID: 9464279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:29:32.914982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:32.924456
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I fully concur in Part II of the majority decision. But because Part III interferes with the discretionary powers of the district court in ruling on evidentiary matters, and because this interference tends to create inflexibility in the application of Rule 609(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, I respectfully dissent.
*482The legislative history of Rule 609 reflects considerable controversy in Congress over the use of prior convictions to impeach a witness’ credibility. Perhaps no other provision of the Rules caused more heated debate among Representatives and Senators than Rule 609. Although Rule 609(b) generally prohibits the use of the convictions if more than ten years have elapsed from the date of conviction or a witness’ release, the Rule does provide that the district court, upon a determination on the basis of specific facts and circumstances that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect, may allow the use of otherwise time-barred convictions for the purpose of attacking a witness’ credibility.
The Rule commits the determination to the district court’s discretion, thus reflecting the manner in which such evidentiary questions were considered prior to the enactment of the Rule. See: United States v. Kowalski, 502 F.2d 203 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 979, 95 S.Ct. 1407, 43 L.Ed.2d 660 (1974); United States v. DiVarco, 484 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 916, 94 S.Ct. 1412, 39 L.Ed.2d 470 (1974); United States v. Sternback, 402 F.2d 353 (7th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1082, 89 S.Ct. 862, 21 L.Ed.2d 774 (1969); United States v. Pinna, 229 F.2d 216 (7th Cir. 1956); United States v. Allison, 414 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 968, 90 S.Ct. 449, 24 L.Ed.2d 433 (1970); United States v. Palumbo, 401 F.2d 270 (2nd Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 947, 89 S.Ct. 1281, 22 L.Ed.2d 480 (1969); Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 383 F.2d 936 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1029, 88 S.Ct. 1421, 20 L.Ed.2d 287 (1968); Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F.2d 763 (1965).
The record in this case shows that prior to trial the government served notice on defendant of its intention to use evidence of defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes if the defendant should choose to testify. The record further shows that the district court employed the balancing test required by Rule 609(b) in making its determination that evidence of the prior convictions would be admissible if defendant chose to testify. In assessing the probative value of the prior convictions, Judge Warren considered the nature of the previous convictions, the similarity of the previous crimes with the crime charged in the instant case, and the importance to the defense of the defendant’s own testimony and questions of credibility pertinent thereto. Having considered these factors, Judge Warren concluded:
“I think you have, to some degree, a conflict between several of these factors because the Rule also talks about crimes involving, I believe the word is false statement or dishonesty and when one looks at bankruptcy fraud, tax evasion, and the bank embezzlement, it seems to me that you have false statement and dishonest representations involved in those and yet you have to weigh that against the danger that if the crime is too close in kind, that then the jury will be inclined to not weigh the evidence that it would just operate on the theory if a person did it once, they will do it again. So that I find that a difficult choice. I think there is a good public policy to be pursued in not berating or plaguing a defendant with old crimes for which he has paid a penalty and from which he hopefully has been rehabilitated and as has been pointed out, I suppose that is particularly important when one is dealing with crimes convicted or which were carried out at a tender age than when one is then subsequently dealing with a matured individual. I think we have a somewhat different situation in that the events seem to be spaced out throughout the individual’s life. [Defendant’s convictions occurred when he was 42 and 56 years of age.] We have got 38 years from now til the first one and the court is of the opinion that weighing all of these factors, I think that the degree of dishonest representation involved in each of the three crimes, coupled with the fact that I find it difficult to understand or to feel that the testimony of the defendant is that crucial to his defense. The Court *483therefore, is going to deny the motion in limine and will permit the utilization of those two convictions if the defendant, in fact, takes the stand.”
Implicit in Judge Warren’s ruling was his belief that the jury should be allowed to hear evidence of prior convictions in assessing defendant’s credibility. If the district court had not admitted such evidence, the jury would be given the appearance of a defendant with a long and blameless life, when, in fact, only the former characteristic was true.
Moreover, the record shows that immediately after evidence of the two convictions was introduced, the district court properly instructed the jury not once, but twice, as to the limited purpose of the evidence. In its general charge to the jury, the court again repeated the instruction. Further, nothing in the record indicates that the government made any improper use of this evidence.
In my view, the record in this case abundantly demonstrates careful and profound consideration by the district court of an evidentiary question in compliance with the requirements established by Rule 609(b). I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant was unfairly prejudiced by the admission of evidence of prior convictions. Such a conclusion is tantamount to a finding of an abuse of discretion by the district court when the record simply does not justify such a finding.
On the issue of otherwise time-barred convictions, I believe Rule 609(b) provides a framework for discretionary ruling by the trial court. A reviewing court’s reversal of a determination by a trial court on an evi-dentiary question, when the record fully supports the trial judge’s determination in compliance with the Rules, can only serve to create the type of confusion and inflexibility in the trial courts which the Federal Rules of Evidence were designed to eliminate. I respectfully dissent.