Gordon v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 3214. |
| Citation | 254 F. 53 |
| Parties | GORDON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Chas Akerman, of Macon, Ga., for plaintiff in error.
E. M Donalson, U.S. Atty., of Macon, Ga.
Before WALKER and BATTS, Circuit Judges, and SHEPPARD, District Judge.
The plaintiff in error, Robert Lee Gordon, was tried and convicted in the Southern district of Georgia on the usual indictment of four counts for a violation of section 3258 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 5994), namely having in his custody and control and set up a distilling apparatus in violation of statute, and with operating, etc a distillery for which no bond had been given to the United States in conformity to law. During the progress of the trial the defendant volunteered as a witness in his own behalf, and on cross-examination by the United States Attorney was confronted by the record of a previous conviction for the same offense in the same court two years before, to which objection was made, and exception taken to the order of the judge overruling the objection. This exception constitutes the only assignment on this writ of error.
The plaintiff in error complains that the admission of this evidence went to impeach the character of the defendant and was strongly prejudicial to his defense in the trial. That evidence of other independent crimes and convictions to establish the guilt of an accused are incompetent is well settled. Dyar v. United States, 186 F. 614, 108 C.C.A. 478, and cases cited. And it also is true that, unless the accused has introduced evidence of good character, the prosecution cannot introduce evidence of his bad character and habits as part of its case. Thompson v. Bowie, 4 Wall. 463, 18 L.Ed. 423; Williams v. United States, 168 U.S. 382, 18 Sup.Ct. 92, 42 L.Ed. 509.
When however, the defendant in a criminal trial in a United States court takes the stand as a witness in his own behalf, he does so at his own election, and, by the federal practice, as a witness he becomes subject to all the rules and tests applicable to any other witness, and to test his credibility he may be interrogated as to all matters affecting his credibility. He may be impeached, like any other witness, by proving that he has been convicted of a felony; the punishment provided in the statute for the offense of which the plaintiff had previously been convicted made it a felony. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Branch
...to prove that his character is bad." See, also State v. Beale (Ind.), 34 Am. Rep. 263; State v. Werner, et al, (La.), 80 So. 596; Gordon v. U.S., 254 F. 53; State Anderson (La.), 65 So. 478; Maloy v. State (Fla.), 41 So. 791; State v. Nelson (Minn.), 181 N.W. 850; Cox v. State (Ala.), 50 So......
-
Scaffidi v. United States, 2336.
...be asked on cross-examination for the purpose of impeachment if he had not previously been convicted of a felony. In Gordon v. United States, 254 F. 53 (C. C. A. 5th, 1918), it is held that, where accused took the stand in his own behalf, he could be impeached like any other witness by proo......
-
Salerno v. United States
...Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 37 S. Ct. 192, 61 L. Ed. 442, L. R. A. 1917F, 502, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 1168; Gordon v. United States, 165 C. C. A. 463, 254 F. 53; Austin v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 774. When he takes the stand in his own behalf, he does so as any other witn......
-
Lindsey v. United States, 15378.
...actuated by the same intent, Cf. Dyar v. United States, 5 Cir., 186 F. 614; Taliaferro v. United States, 5 Cir., 213 F. 25; Gordon v. United States, 5 Cir., 254 F. 53; Lloyd v. United States, 5 Cir., 226 F.2d 9. Here, of course, the prior act satisfied these requirements, and the court care......