Court Opinion

ID: 9465077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:34:58.290765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:57.532787
License: Public Domain

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the court’s opinion as to all matters except its conclusion that the Government had no responsibility to advise the court that appellant Trejo-Zambrano’s prior conviction as a youth offender had been set aside pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5021(b).
Federal Rule of Evidence 609(c) provides that: “Evidence of a conviction is not admissible [for impeachment purposes] if (1) the conviction has been the subject of a certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year . . . The Federal Youth Corrections Act puts prosecution and defense alike on notice that a conviction is automatically set aside where one who has been sentenced as a youth offender is unconditionally discharged before expiration of the maximum sentence imposed on him or before expiration of the maximum period of probation initially fixed by the court. 18 U.S.C. § 5021.
Moreover, the record clearly indicates that the prosecutor was fully aware of the nature of the offense and of the possibility that a certificate of discharge had been issued:
Mr. Peterson [Prosecutor]:
[The conviction is] being offered for impeachment and it’s well within the ten-year rule, and it’s for the smuggling of marijuana, and it’s clearly admissible under the rules. I do not have in my file a — any indication that there was a certificate of discharge.
Reporter’s Transcript, vol. IV, at 429. Defense counsel objected to introduction of the prior conviction and indicated his uncertainty as to whether or not it had been expunged:
Mr. Cleary [Defense Counsel]: .
So my problem is, I don’t have the file to indicate to the Court whether or not such certificate was obtained and I’m fearful that a miscarriage of justice would occur if we discovered such a thing after the time.
Id. at 428.
On these facts I would conclude that it was error to admit evidence of a Federal Youth Corrections Act conviction where the Government has not shown that the conviction had not been expunged. The majority cites no case to the contrary, and the legislative history of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(B) states only that the Government ordinarily discharges its duty by furnishing defense counsel with the docket sheet. The specific circumstance presented here, where the defense has explicitly objected to admission of what the prosecution knows to be a juvenile conviction, is not necessarily the ordinary situation referred to by the legislature. Cf. United States v. Cox, 536 F.2d 65, 70 n.11 (5th Cir. 1976) (in order properly to evi*467deuce defendant’s conviction, Government should have obtained a certified copy of the judgment).