Gordon v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1967 · Evidence

383 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1967)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceImpeachment by prior convictionscredibilityprior convictionsimpeachmentjudicial discretionprejudice vs probative valueremoteness

Facts

The second trial turned largely on a direct credibility contest between the complaining witness and the defendant. The complaining witness had been the sole government witness at the first trial, and newly discovered evidence showed he had a larceny conviction relevant to credibility. At the second trial, both the complaining witness's and appellant's criminal records were before the jury. Appellant argued on appeal that the judge should have excluded impeachment of his testimony by prior convictions under Luck.

Issue

Whether the trial judge abused the discretion recognized in Luck v. United States by permitting impeachment of appellant with prior convictions, especially in a case that turned on the relative credibility of the accused and his accuser.

Rule

Prior convictions are ordinarily admissible to impeach credibility, but under Luck the defendant may ask the trial court to exclude them if their prejudicial effect far outweighs their probative relevance to credibility, or if the cause of truth would be better served by letting the jury hear the defendant's story. The burden is on the accused to meaningfully raise the issue and provide sufficient reasons for exclusion, after which the trial judge should make an on-the-record discretionary inquiry. As a rule of thumb, convictions involving dishonesty bear on credibility, while violent or assaultive crimes and traffic offenses generally do not; remoteness and similarity to the charged crime are important additional factors.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a burglary trial in Baltimore, Devin Cole plans to testify that he was elsewhere when the break-in occurred. The prosecutor announces an intent to impeach him with prior convictions for check fraud and shoplifting. Defense counsel objects only by saying, "We object to any mention of priors," and gives no further explanation.

If Devin is convicted and argues on appeal that the trial judge should have excluded the prior convictions under the discretionary balancing doctrine, which result is most likely?

Explanation. The majority treated prior convictions as ordinarily admissible unless the accused meaningfully asks the court to exclude them and provides sufficient reasons. Absent a meaningful invocation of that discretion, an appellate court generally will not find abuse of discretion absent plain error. Here, counsel's bare objection did not adequately raise the balancing issue.