Weiner v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 3586.,3586. |
| Parties | WEINER v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Warren H. VanKirk, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff in error.
Joseph A. Richardson and John D. Meyer, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the United States.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Some United States Attorneys, when prosecuting for violations of the National Prohibition Act (Comp. St. § 10138¼ et seq.), show a disposition to depart as far as they safely can from the rule which limits cross-examination of the defendant as to prior criminal convictions solely to an attack upon his credibility as a witness (when, as in this case, he has not put his character in issue) and to endeavor thus to lodge in the minds of jurors the thought that, as the defendant has confessed a previous conviction for the commission of a similar crime, it is likely he committed the one for which he is on trial.
The law has long been settled that evidence of the commission of one crime cannot be used to prove the defendant committed another. Wigmore on Evidence, § 192; Regina v. Oddy, 2 Denison Cr. C. 264; Boyd v. United States, 142 U. S. 450, 12 S. Ct. 292, 35 L. Ed. 1077; Taliaferro v. United States (C. C. A.) 213 F. 25; Dyar v. United States (C. C. A.) 186 F. 614. To this rule there are exceptions, for instance, when two offenses are inseparably connected and evidence of the first tends directly to prove the second. Astwood v. United States, 1 F.(2d) (C. C. A. 8th) 639, 642. The rule against the admissibility of evidence of one crime to prove another is equally applicable whether the evidence is elicited from witnesses for the prosecution or from the defendant himself. But when the defendant takes the stand in his own defense, he offers himself as a witness and, like all witnesses, submits himself to attack as to his credibility. For this purpose alone he may be asked, and be compelled to answer, questions as to the fact of previous convictions. And in this way his testimony may lawfully be weakened. It is just here that trouble arises, for not infrequently a prosecuting attorney will, if allowed, proceed further and explore the defendant's record in an endeavor to compare the facts of two unrelated cases and prove the one on trial by the one confessed. This, we have repeatedly held, is wrong. Beyer v. United States (C. C. A.) 282 F. 225, 227; Mansbach v. United States (C. C. A.) 11 F.(2d) 221, 224.
Applying the law to this case, where the defendant with others was on trial for breaking a lock and seal of a distillery warehouse, for conspiracy to commit that offense, for resisting government officers and removing spirits on which the internal revenue tax had not been paid, and where he had not put his character in issue, the offending questions appear in the three assignments of error which the defendant filed on taking this writ. They are:
At the hearing on this writ of error the attorney for Weiner (who was not his trial attorney) admitted there was no vice in the questions shown by the first two assignments of error, but maintained that the rule was invaded by the questions appearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowling Bros. Distilling Co. v. United States
...and its reception is within the sound discretion of the Court. Walker v. United States, 4 Cir., 104 F.2d 465, 470; Weiner v. United States, 3 Cir., 20 F.2d 522, 523; Williams v. United States, 5 Cir., 46 F.2d 731, 732; Edwards v. United States, 8 Cir., 18 F.2d 402, 403; United States v. Wal......
-
Edmisten v. People, 24244
...concerning other unrelated crimes was elicited from the defendant on cross-examination does not make it admissible. Weiner v. United States, 3rd Cir., 20 F.2d 522, 523; Hawkins v. State, 224 Miss. 309, 80 So.2d 1, The attorney general argues that even if the district attorney's reference to......
-
United States v. Empire Packing Co.
...stand in his own defense, may be cross-examined regarding a prior conviction for a felony as affecting his credibility. Weiner v. United States, 3 Cir., 20 F.2d 522; United States v. Modern Reed & Rattan Co., 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 656, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 831, 67 S.Ct. 1510, 91 L.Ed. 1845......
-
United States v. Howell, 11948.
...by the Government, especially in view of the record of prior conviction, Exhibit G-11. As this Court said in Weiner v. United States, 3 Cir., 1927, 20 F.2d 522, at page 523: "* * * when the defendant takes the stand in his own defense, he offers himself as a witness and, like all witnesses,......