U.S. v. Williams, 78-5175

Decision Date18 October 1978
Docket NumberNo. 78-5175,78-5175
Parties4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 226 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen J. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Thomas E. Jackson, Kenneth R. Sasse and Stephen Gleit, Detroit, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

James K. Robinson, U. S. Atty., Ellen Ritteman, F. William Soisson, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.

ORDER

Before WEICK and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.

On receipt and consideration of an appeal in the above-styled case; and

Noting that appellant was convicted after jury trial on two counts of passing counterfeit notes and one count of possession of counterfeit notes, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 (1970); and

Further noting that the only appellate issue presented is appellant's claim that "the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that defendant's prior convictions of carrying a concealed weapon and attempted armed robbery would be admissible at trial"; and

Having determined from the record that the District Judge considered the question of cross-examination on prior crimes and ruled in advance that the testimony concerning one offense would not be admissible but that testimony pertaining to two felony convictions (which permitted sentences in excess of one year) would be admissible if defendant took the stand; and

Noting further from the record that appellant in fact did not take the stand, but nonetheless contends prejudicial error in said pretrial ruling by the Judge in influencing his decision not to take the stand; and

Further noting that Rule 609(a) provides as follows:

(a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.

Fed.R.Evid. 609(a).

And further noting that the District Judge in his pretrial ruling clearly exercised his discretion, as called for by Rule 609 by holding that a conviction for the sale of marijuana could not be admitted or allowed to be made a subject of cross-examination...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • U.S. v. Lipscomb, 81-1895
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 15 Marzo 1983
    ...523, 528 (4th Cir.1980) (Rule 608) (same); United States v. Hitsman, 604 F.2d 443, 447 (5th Cir.1979) (same); United States v. Williams, 587 F.2d 1 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (implicit); United States v. Hayes, 553 F.2d 824, 826 (2d Cir.) (implicit), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 867, 98 S.Ct. 20......
  • U.S. v. Luce
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 14 Mayo 1983
    ...value outweighed its prejudicial effect. Such a determination is reviewable on an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Williams, 587 F.2d 1 (6th Cir.1978). We need not decide whether the District Court abused its discretion here, however, as we hold that a preliminary ruling on ad......
  • U.S. v. Coon, 89-1489
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 19 Marzo 1991
    ...whether the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Sloman, 909 F.2d 176, 181 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Williams, 587 F.2d 1 (6th Cir.1978) (per curiam order). III. A. The Defendant Coon argues that the cocaine seized from the luggage in her possession should have been supp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT