U.S. v. Colbert
| Decision Date | 06 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-50322,96-50322 |
| Citation | 116 F.3d 395 |
| Parties | 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 256, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4553, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7563 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James COLBERT, III, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Judith Rochlin, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-94-00068-AHS-3.
Before: HUG, Chief Judge, and FERNANDEZ and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant James Colbert, III appeals his convictions for conspiracy, possession of counterfeit securities, and bank fraud. In this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion when it limited the cross-examination of a Government witness to preclude questioning regarding his prior misdemeanor conviction for lewd conduct. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Colbert's codefendant Milton Lowy pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government, and agreed to testify at trial against Colbert and the other codefendants. Several days before Colbert's trial commenced, Lowy notified the Government that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor count of lewd conduct for soliciting a prostitute. The Government subsequently informed the court and the defendants concerning the conviction. A hearing regarding the admissibility of this evidence was held prior to commencement of the trial, following which, the district court ruled the evidence inadmissible. The defense was not allowed to impeach Lowy at trial by questioning him regarding the conviction.
We review a district court's ruling regarding the scope of cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Jackson, 882 F.2d 1444, 1446 (9th Cir.1989). We will only reverse the district court if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1221 (9th Cir.1996).
Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609 limit a defendant's ability to impeach an adverse witness with his prior criminal record during cross-examination. Rule 609(a) allows a witness to be impeached with a prior conviction if (1) "the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted," or if (2) the crime "involved dishonesty or a false statement, regardless of the punishment." Rule 608(b) prohibits the introduction of specific acts of conduct for the purpose of impeaching a witness's credibility unless the district court finds such acts to be "probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness." United States v. Reid, 634 F.2d 469, 473 (9th Cir.1980).
Lowy's lewd conduct conviction does not qualify for introduction under either Rule 609(a) or 608(b). Firstly, Lowy's conviction was for disorderly conduct under Cal.Penal Code § 647(b). He was subjected to a maximum term of imprisonment that was not to exceed six months. Cal.Penal Code § 19. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has held that "a conviction for prostitution does not involve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...this statute, as it is not in the nature of crimen falsi, involving some element of dishonesty or false statement. United States v. Colbert, 116 F.3d 395, 396 (9th Cir.1997); State v. Al–Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 578 S.E.2d 32, 38(II)(A) (S.C.App.2003); Commonwealth v. McNeil, 545 Pa. 42, 679 A.2......
-
Brahmana v. Lembo
...sentence may be used by the Defendants for impeachment purposes. See FTR 2:41:17-2:42:15 (Jan. 10, 2012). 3. Cf. United States v. Colbert, 116 F.3d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1997) (finding that a conviction for lew conduct, like that for prostitution, does not involve dishonesty or false statement......
-
Garcia v. Cluck, 14-56631
...admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), such questioning was not probative of Cobb's truthfulness. See United States v. Colbert, 116 F.3d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Rule 608(b) prohibits the introduction of specific acts of conduct for the purpose of impeaching a witness's credibili......
-
Darden v. Spencer, 1:12-cv-01001-LJO-EPG-PC
...impeachment of testimony. In opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel, Defendant cites the Ninth Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Colbert, 116 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 1997) that a witness's prior misdemeanor conviction for lewd conduct was inadmissible for impeachment purposes under the Federal R......
-
Trial
...court. The appellate court will review a denial or restriction of cross-examination for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Colbert , 116 F.3d 395, 396 (9th Cir. 1997). However, when the government’s case turns on the credibility of a witness, the trial court must give the defendant th......