NCJ Number
77761
Journal
Syracuse Law Review Volume: 31 Issue: 4 Dated: (Fall 1980) Pages: 907-958
Date Published
1980
Length
52 pages
Annotation
This article analyzes the decisionmaking process required under the balancing provision of rule 609 (a)(1) (involving the impeachment of a witness) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and suggests an alternative approach to decisionmaking under the rule.
Abstract
Rule 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence deals with the impeachment of a witness by evidence that the witness has been previously convicted of a crime. As finally adopted by Congress, the rule provides that two categories of crime can be used for impeachment purposes: any felony crime or any crime involving dishonesty or false statement regardless of the level of punishment. In adopting the general felony level provision, Congress included a balancing provision intended to be applicable only to criminal cases. Under this provision, evidence of a general felony crime can be used for impeachment purposes only if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. Thus, the courts are confronted with the task of making the compromise workable. Based on reported cases, it may be concluded that the trial courts make rulings under 609 (a)(1) at whatever stage in the proceeding the issue is raised by the defendant. With regard to how the determination of whether probative value outweighs prejudicial effect is made, appellate courts have suggested procedures which trial courts may follow. In actual practice, however, some appellate courts have shown reluctance to reverse a conviction merely because the trial judge failed to comply with the specified procedural ideal. Thus, the trial court should make its ruling as early as possible, preferably prior to trial. The court should base its ruling on an analysis of three factors: the impeachment value of the prior crime, which relates to probative value; the point in time of the conviction and the subsequent history of the witness, which increases or decreases probative value; and the similarity between the prior crime and the charged crime, which relates to prejudicial effect. If the court admits evidence of one or more prior convictions for impeachment purposes, its ruling should be upheld on appeal only if its ruling can be justified in terms of a proper application of the three-factor analysis. The article includes 234 footnotes.