United States v. Brewer
3 Fed. R. Serv. 162, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19159, 451 F.Supp. 50 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, the ten-year time limit for admitting prior convictions for impeachment runs from the most recent release from confinement, including re-incarceration for a parole violation. When a prior conviction is for the same crime as the one currently charged, its high potential for prejudice often outweighs its probative value, making it inadmissible under the Rule 609(a) balancing test.
Facts:
- The defendant was charged with kidnapping a victim in Jellico, Tennessee, and transporting them in a stolen motor vehicle.
- The victim later escaped from their abductors in Valdosta, Georgia.
- In 1960, the defendant was convicted of federal kidnapping and sentenced to ten years in prison.
- He was released on parole from this federal sentence on June 27, 1967.
- While on federal parole, the defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated assault, and assault with a deadly weapon in Ohio state court on January 6, 1968.
- After serving time for the state convictions, the defendant was recommitted to federal confinement for violating his parole on the original kidnapping conviction.
- The defendant was released from this subsequent federal confinement on February 9, 1976.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the Middle District of Georgia, Valdosta Division, returned an indictment charging the defendant with one count of kidnapping and one count of transporting a stolen motor vehicle on September 23, 1977.
- On October 10, 1977, the defendant and a co-defendant filed a motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Tennessee.
- Chief Judge Robert Elliott of the Middle District of Georgia granted the motion to transfer.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the government's proposed introduction of four past convictions as impeachment evidence should he choose to testify.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, does the probative value of a defendant's prior convictions—including one for the same crime as currently charged—outweigh their prejudicial effect for impeachment purposes, and does the 10-year time limit for admissibility run from the initial release or a subsequent release after a parole violation?
Opinions:
Majority - Taylor, J.
Partially. A prior conviction for the same crime as the one charged is inadmissible because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its probative value, but other serious felony convictions may be admitted if their probative value outweighs their prejudice. The court first determined that the stringent ten-year time limit of Rule 609(b) did not apply to any of the convictions. It held that 'release from confinement' includes release from re-confinement for a parole violation, meaning the ten-year clock for the 1960 kidnapping conviction started on the defendant's final release in 1976, not his initial parole in 1967. Therefore, all four convictions fell under the standard Rule 609(a) balancing test. Applying the five-factor test from Gordon v. United States, the court reasoned that while the defendant's poor subsequent history weighed in favor of admission, the violent nature of the crimes had little bearing on veracity. Critically, the similarity between the prior kidnapping conviction and the current charge created an 'inevitable pressure on lay jurors to believe that ‘if he did it before he probably did so this time.’' This substantial risk of prejudice outweighed any probative value for impeachment, making the prior kidnapping conviction inadmissible. The other three convictions (rape and assaults), while prejudicial, were deemed sufficiently probative of credibility to be admitted.
Analysis:
This memorandum opinion provides a key clarification of Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b)'s ten-year time limit, establishing that the clock resets upon release from re-incarceration for a parole violation. This prevents defendants with continuous criminal histories from using the time limit to exclude convictions for which they were recently confined. The decision also serves as a strong practical application of the Gordon balancing test, reinforcing the principle that courts must act as gatekeepers to prevent unfair prejudice. By excluding a prior conviction for the same crime as charged, the court highlighted the significant danger that a jury will use such evidence for the improper purpose of judging propensity rather than credibility, thereby protecting the defendant's right to be tried only on the current charges.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Brewer