Also known as: FRE 609 · Fed. R. Evid. 609 · Federal Rule of Evidence 609 · impeachment by prior conviction · Rule 609 impeachment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary rule that permits a party to attack a witness's character for truthfulness by introducing evidence of the witness's prior criminal conviction. The rule distinguishes between felonies punishable by more than one year and convictions involving dishonest acts or false statements, with different balancing standards depending on whether the witness is a criminal defendant.
Riley Rivera testified for the defense in a contract dispute. On cross-examination, opposing counsel asked whether Riley had been convicted of felony theft two years earlier. The court allowed the question because the conviction was recent and the balancing test favored admission in this civil case.
Raymond Ramos took the stand and vouched for a colleague's honesty. Defense counsel then tried to introduce the colleague's prior conviction through Ramos. The court sustained the objection because Rule 609 requires direct impeachment of the witness whose credibility is at issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rita Russell testified for the prosecution. The defense sought to show her membership in an organization that encouraged false testimony. The court permitted limited questions on bias but excluded any reference to an unrelated prior conviction that did not meet Rule 609 standards.
Rosa Ruiz moved in limine to bar use of her prior conviction if she testified. The district court denied the motion. Because Rosa ultimately chose not to testify, the appellate court held that any error in the ruling was not preserved for review.
Ricardo Rojas took the stand in his own defense and disclosed his prior conviction on direct examination. The Supreme Court held that this strategic choice waived any claim that the conviction should have been excluded under Rule 609.
Rachel Ramirez testified and was impeached with a prior conviction. The proponent then offered evidence of her rehabilitation. The court excluded the rehabilitation evidence because it did not satisfy the requirements for admitting prior consistent statements under the rules.
A conviction is automatically admissible if the court can readily determine that its elements required proof or admission of a dishonest act or false statement. No further balancing is required once that determination is made.
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. This is a stricter test than the substantial-outweigh standard used for other witnesses.
Evidence of a conviction is inadmissible if it was the subject of a pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation based on a finding of rehabilitation, unless the witness has a later qualifying conviction. An annulment based on innocence also bars admission.
The proponent must give reasonable written notice of the intent to use the conviction so the adverse party has a fair opportunity to contest its use. Mere disclosure of the conviction without stating the intended evidentiary purpose is insufficient.
…such a change." Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co. , 490 U. S. 504, 521 (1989) (applying that presumption in interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 609). Nothing in the Advisory Committee's Notes suggests that it intended to alter the common-law premotive requirement. C The Government's final argument in favor of affirmance is that…