Also known as: Fed. R. Evid. 609 · Rule 609 · FRE 609 · Fed R Evid 609 · impeachment by prior conviction
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of evidence that sets the standards for using a witness's prior criminal convictions to attack the witness's character for truthfulness. The rule distinguishes between felonies and crimes involving dishonesty, applies different balancing tests depending on whether the witness is a criminal defendant, and bars use of convictions that have been vacated or annulled on grounds of rehabilitation or innocence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Forrest Falconer testified that his colleague Francois Fortier was reliable and trustworthy. On cross-examination, opposing counsel attempted to introduce a document showing Fortier had once falsified a shipping log. The court sustained an objection because the evidence was extrinsic proof of a specific instance rather than a conviction.
Faye Fuller called a coworker to describe another witness's reliability. Defense counsel then asked the coworker whether he knew the other witness had a criminal record. The court sustained the objection because Rule 609 impeachment must target the witness directly on cross-examination.
Felipe Figueroa faced drug charges. After the court ruled her prior conviction admissible for impeachment, she testified on direct and admitted the conviction herself. On appeal she could not challenge the in limine ruling because she had introduced the evidence.
Frederick Ferguson moved in limine to exclude his prior conviction. The court denied the motion. Ferguson did not testify, and the appellate court refused to review the ruling because he never took the stand and suffered no actual impeachment.
Flora Ford testified for the defense. The prosecution introduced evidence that she and a key defense witness belonged to the same prison gang whose members were expected to lie for one another. The court admitted the evidence to show bias rather than general character.
Foxfire Biotech called a longshoreman who testified about proper cargo handling. The plaintiff sought to impeach him with a five-year-old juvenile adjudication for theft at the same port. The court excluded the adjudication because juvenile records are generally inadmissible for impeachment in civil actions.
Evidence of a conviction is inadmissible if the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, certificate of rehabilitation, or equivalent procedure based on a finding of rehabilitation, provided the witness has no later qualifying conviction. The same bar applies when an annulment rests on a finding of innocence.
Supporting sources
The proponent must give the adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use the conviction so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use. A pretrial motion that describes the conviction but does not expressly state an intent to offer it for impeachment fails to satisfy the requirement.
…although they do expressly treat impeachment by character evidence and conduct, Rule 608, by evidence of conviction of a crime, Rule 609, and by showing of religious beliefs or opinion, Rule 610. Neither party has suggested what significance we should attribute to this fact. Although we are nominally the promulgators of the…
…in any effort to rule on subtle evid
…exchange then took place: Defense: Okay. Were you aware that he was convicted of -- Prosecutor: Objection. This is Rule 609
…Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38 (1984), which recognized that any possible harm flowing from an in limine ruling permitting impeachment by prior conviction
When the witness is the defendant in a criminal case, a felony conviction is admissible only if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. In civil cases or when the witness is not the accused, the conviction is admitted unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Evidence of any conviction must be admitted, regardless of the punishment authorized, if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of a dishonest act or false statement.