United States v. Lollar
606 F.2d 587 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a), a witness's character for truthfulness may be attacked by another witness's testimony in the form of a direct opinion, and it is not required for the attacking witness to first establish knowledge of the principal witness's reputation in the community.
Facts:
- Howard Lollar and several of his employees were in a van in New Jersey.
- Police officer Raymond Ackerman approached the parked van at a rest area on Route 23.
- Ackerman observed five people, including Lollar, asleep inside the van.
- After Lollar, the driver, showed the officer his license, the officer left without making any arrests.
- Property was stolen from a warehouse in West Milford, New Jersey.
- The stolen property, valued at over $5,000, was then transported across state lines.
Procedural Posture:
- Howard Lollar was prosecuted by the United States in federal district court for interstate transportation of stolen property.
- At trial, Lollar testified in his own defense.
- The government then recalled a witness, Lollar's former employer, to testify about Lollar's character for truthfulness.
- The defense counsel objected to the witness being asked if he would believe Lollar under oath, but the trial court overruled the objection.
- The trial court convicted Lollar.
- Lollar (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a) permit a witness to state a personal opinion about a defendant's character for truthfulness after the defendant has testified in their own defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
Yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a) permits a witness to attack a defendant's credibility with direct opinion testimony regarding their character for truthfulness. Once a criminal defendant chooses to testify, their credibility is put at issue just like any other witness. The court reasoned that Rule 608(a) explicitly resolves the historical conflict between allowing only reputation testimony versus allowing opinion testimony by stating that credibility may be attacked 'by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation.' The Rule imposes no prerequisite for the opinion witness to have long acquaintance or knowledge of the defendant's reputation; the appropriate method for exposing any defects in the opinion, such as lack of familiarity or personal hostility, is through cross-examination.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the modern approach to character evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence, explicitly moving away from the more restrictive common law tradition that favored reputation testimony. It clarifies that Rule 608(a) authorizes a direct and streamlined method of impeachment through personal opinion, simplifying the process for attorneys. The case underscores that the safeguard against baseless or biased opinion testimony is not a complex set of foundational requirements for admissibility, but rather the adversarial process of cross-examination. This interpretation impacts trial strategy by making it easier to challenge a witness's credibility, including that of a testifying defendant.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Lollar