United States v. Pierre Dawson and Alphonso Ingram
434 F.3d 956 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b)'s prohibition on using extrinsic evidence to prove a witness's character for truthfulness does not bar an attorney from cross-examining a witness about a prior judicial determination that the witness was not credible. The decision to permit or prohibit such questioning is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.
Facts:
- Three government agents testified for the prosecution in the criminal trial of the Dawson defendants.
- In two previous, unrelated suppression hearings involving other defendants, trial judges had found the testimony of these same three agents to be not credible.
- During the Dawson trial, defense counsel sought to cross-examine the agents about these prior judicial findings.
- The trial judge refused to permit this line of questioning, ruling that it was barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b).
Procedural Posture:
- In the U.S. District Court (trial court), the Dawson defendants were convicted.
- During the trial, the judge barred defense counsel from cross-examining government witnesses about prior judicial findings that they were not credible.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the convictions, reasoning that while the trial judge's evidentiary ruling was an error, it was harmless.
- The government then filed a motion for rehearing with the Court of Appeals, asking the court to modify its reasoning regarding the evidentiary issue.
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(b), which prohibits proving a witness's character for truthfulness with extrinsic evidence, also prohibit an attorney from cross-examining that witness about a prior judicial finding that the witness's testimony was not credible?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) is a rule about presenting extrinsic evidence, not about asking questions on cross-examination. The rule prohibits introducing external proof, such as a court document, to attack a witness's character for truthfulness. Merely asking a witness whether a judge in a prior case found their testimony to be not credible is a form of inquiry into a specific instance of conduct, which is permissible under the rule, not an attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence. The bar on extrinsic evidence would only be triggered if, after the witness denied the adverse finding, the attorney attempted to introduce the judicial opinion or other documents to prove the finding occurred. The ultimate decision to allow such cross-examination is not automatic but is confided to the discretion of the trial judge, who must weigh its probative value against the risk of confusing the jury or unnecessarily prolonging the trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of FRE 608(b) by drawing a sharp line between permissible cross-examination inquiry and the impermissible introduction of extrinsic evidence. It establishes that a prior judicial finding of non-credibility is a valid subject for cross-examination, providing a potent tool for impeaching witnesses, particularly government agents who testify frequently. However, by vesting the ultimate authority in the trial judge's discretion, the court ensures this tool cannot be used to harass witnesses or mislead the jury, requiring a case-by-case analysis of fairness and relevance rather than a blanket prohibition.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Pierre Dawson and Alphonso Ingram