United States v. Abel
469 U.S. 45 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a witness's and a party's common membership in an organization is admissible to prove the witness's bias, and the tenets of that organization may also be admitted to show the source and strength of the bias, even if the evidence would be inadmissible for other purposes such as proving character for untruthfulness.
Facts:
- John Abel was indicted for bank robbery along with two cohorts.
- One cohort, Kurt Ehle, agreed to testify against Abel at trial.
- Abel planned to call Robert Mills, a mutual friend of Abel and Ehle from prison, to testify that Ehle had admitted he intended to falsely implicate Abel.
- Abel, Mills, and Ehle were all members of the 'Aryan Brotherhood,' a secret prison gang.
- The gang's tenets required members to always deny the existence of the organization.
- The gang's rules also required its members to commit perjury, theft, and murder on behalf of fellow members.
Procedural Posture:
- John Abel was convicted of bank robbery in the U.S. District Court following a jury trial.
- During the trial, the court admitted rebuttal testimony about a secret prison gang to which Abel and a defense witness belonged, for the purpose of showing the witness's bias.
- Abel, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed Abel's conviction, holding that the admission of the gang-related testimony was improper.
- The United States, as the petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of extrinsic evidence showing that a defense witness and a defendant are members of a secret prison gang, whose tenets require members to lie for one another, violate the Federal Rules of Evidence when offered to impeach the witness by showing bias?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The admission of extrinsic evidence showing common membership in a group like a prison gang does not violate the Federal Rules of Evidence when offered to show a witness's potential bias. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not explicitly codify impeachment for bias, it is a permissible and long-standing common law practice implicitly authorized by the Rules' general principles of relevance. Evidence of common membership in an organization is probative of bias, and the specific tenets of that organization—such as a commitment to perjury for fellow members—are highly relevant to show the source and strength of that bias. Such evidence is not barred by Rule 608(b), which prohibits extrinsic evidence of conduct to attack a witness's character for truthfulness, because evidence admissible for one purpose (showing bias) is not rendered inadmissible simply because it is inadmissible for another purpose (showing character). The district court properly exercised its discretion under Rule 403 by weighing the high probative value of the gang evidence against its potential for unfair prejudice and taking steps to mitigate that prejudice.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that impeachment for bias remains a distinct and permissible method of impeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence, despite its omission from the text. The Court clarifies that evidence that might be barred by a specific rule (like Rule 608(b)'s prohibition on extrinsic evidence of conduct to show character) can be admitted if it serves a different, permissible purpose, such as showing bias. This ruling grants trial courts significant discretion under Rule 403 to admit potentially prejudicial but highly probative evidence related to a witness's affiliations, emphasizing that the nature of an organization is critical to assessing the strength of a witness's potential bias.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Abel