Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Wong

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
703 F.2d 65 (1983)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2), a trial court has no discretion to exclude evidence of a prior conviction involving dishonesty or false statement for impeachment purposes, and the general balancing test of Rule 403 does not apply.


Facts:

  • John Barry Wong had a 1978 federal conviction for mail fraud.
  • Wong also had a 1981 federal conviction for Medicare fraud.
  • Both mail fraud and Medicare fraud are considered crimes involving dishonesty or false statement.
  • Wong was subsequently charged with new counts of mail fraud and RICO violations.
  • Wong planned to testify in his own defense at his trial for the new charges.

Procedural Posture:

  • John Barry Wong was charged with mail fraud and RICO violations in federal district court.
  • Prior to testifying, Wong's counsel filed a motion to preclude the prosecution from using his prior fraud convictions for impeachment.
  • The trial court found that the prejudicial effect of the convictions outweighed their probative value.
  • However, the court denied the motion, ruling that under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2), it had no discretion to exclude convictions for crimes of dishonesty.
  • Wong testified at trial and was impeached with the prior convictions on cross-examination.
  • A jury found Wong guilty on all counts.
  • Wong (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing the district court erred in its legal conclusion.

Locked

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 a district court have the discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude evidence of a witness's prior conviction for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement if it finds the evidence is unduly prejudicial?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A district court does not have discretion to exclude evidence of a prior conviction involving dishonesty or false statement (crimen falsi) under the balancing test of Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The plain language of Rule 609(a) differentiates between general felony convictions under subsection (a)(1), which are subject to a balancing test, and convictions for crimes of dishonesty under subsection (a)(2), which 'shall be admitted.' The general balancing test of Rule 403 is meant for situations not covered by a more specific rule, and Rule 609(a)(2) is just such a specific rule. The legislative history of Rule 609(a)(2) is unambiguous, showing that Congress considered and explicitly rejected a version that would have allowed judicial discretion, with the Conference Report stating that admission of such convictions 'is not within the discretion of the Court' and they 'are always to be admitted.'



Analysis:

This decision establishes a bright-line, mandatory rule for the admission of prior convictions involving dishonesty or false statement for impeachment. It eliminates judicial discretion in this specific area, reinforcing the principle that specific evidentiary rules trump general ones. The ruling significantly impacts trial strategy, particularly for criminal defendants with such prior convictions, as it guarantees that if they choose to testify, the jury will hear about their past crimes of dishonesty, potentially dissuading them from taking the stand.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query United States v. Wong (1983) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for United States v. Wong