Also known as: impeachment by criminal conviction · impeachment with prior conviction · impeachment via conviction · FRE 609 · Rule 609 · prior conviction impeachment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary technique permitting introduction of a witness's prior criminal conviction to attack the witness's character for truthfulness. The conviction must involve a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment or one requiring proof of a dishonest act or false statement. Admissibility turns on case type, the witness's status, the conviction's age, and a balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ines Ibarra testifies for the defense in a civil contract dispute. Opposing counsel seeks to introduce a third-party witness's testimony describing Ines's prior uncharged false statement on a loan application. The court bars the extrinsic proof because the conduct did not result in a criminal conviction under Rule 609.
Idris Ives faces federal drug charges. The district court rules in limine that his prior felony conviction may be used for impeachment. Ives takes the stand and admits the conviction on direct examination. He cannot later challenge the in limine ruling on appeal.
Ingrid Innes moves in limine to exclude her prior conviction before deciding whether to testify in her criminal trial. The district court denies the motion. Because Innes ultimately declines to take the stand, the appellate court refuses to review the in limine decision.
Iris Irons testifies that a defense witness is reliable. On cross-examination, counsel tries to elicit the witness's knowledge of the defense witness's prior conviction. The court sustains the objection because Rule 609 impeachment must target the witness being impeached, not a third party.
Ivy Ibarra testifies for the prosecution. Defense counsel seeks to show that she and the defendant belong to the same prison gang whose members are expected to lie for one another. The court permits the inquiry because the evidence demonstrates bias rather than general character.
Ira Irving testifies in a civil case. Opposing counsel offers his prior felony conviction for a crime involving dishonesty. The court admits the conviction after balancing its probative value on truthfulness against any risk of unfair prejudice.
A felony conviction is admissible to attack a non-defendant witness's character for truthfulness in a civil case unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403. The conviction need not involve dishonesty to qualify.
Supporting sources
Such a conviction is admissible regardless of the authorized punishment. It must be admitted to impeach any witness because the elements require proof of dishonesty, making the conviction highly probative of truthfulness.
…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 evidentiary questions outside a factual context.[^maj-4] This is particularly true under
…exchange then took place: Defense: Okay. Were you aware that he was convicted of -- Prosecutor: Objection. This is Rule 609
…prior felony conviction
Supporting sources
The conviction is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. This reverses the ordinary balancing test and places a heavier burden on the proponent.
Supporting sources
A conviction is inadmissible if it was the subject of a pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation based on a finding of rehabilitation or innocence, provided the witness has no later qualifying conviction. The later-crime exception restores admissibility when a subsequent felony occurs.
Supporting sources
The proponent must give reasonable written notice of intent to use the conviction and show that its probative value, supported by specific facts, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. Mere disclosure without stating the impeachment purpose fails the notice requirement.
Supporting sources