United States v. Burston

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1998 · Evidence

159 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 1998)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 609Rule 403impeachmentprior convictionsnon-defendant witnessFranksprobable cause

Facts

The Government's evidence showed that a robber took money from a postal clerk at the West End post office after presenting a robbery note, and an eyewitness identified Burston and linked the getaway car to him. In a later bank robbery, the robber wore a baseball cap, sunglasses, and unusual hair; shortly afterward Burston gave an acquaintance a bag containing a cap, sunglasses, and a wig that bank employees identified as the robber's disguise, and officers also found clothing in Burston's trunk similar to that worn by the robber. Accomplice Garland Wilson testified that Burston admitted robbing the post office, said he was going to rob the bank, later said he had "hit" the bank, and showed Wilson the robbery outfit. Before trial, Burston sought suppression of the trunk evidence by attacking omissions in the warrant affidavit, and at trial he was allowed to show only that Wilson had "a felony conviction," not the number and nature of his convictions.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Burston's convictions for postal robbery and bank robbery; whether the warrant affidavit was invalid because it omitted information about Wilson's credibility, requiring suppression of items found in Burston's trunk; and whether the district court erred by barring cross-examination about the nature and number of Wilson's prior felony convictions.

Rule

Evidence is sufficient if, viewing the facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the Government, a reasonable factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Franks, a defendant attacking a warrant affidavit based on omissions must make a preliminary showing that the affiant intentionally or recklessly omitted information essential to probable cause. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), a district court must admit evidence of the nature and number of a non-defendant witness's prior felony convictions, unless Rule 403 substantially outweighs that probative value with dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, or cumulativeness.

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.

At a fraud trial in Miami, the prosecution's key witness is Lena Ortiz, who is not charged in the case. Defense counsel seeks to impeach her with proof that she has three recent felony convictions: burglary, felony theft, and aggravated battery. The judge allows counsel to ask only whether Ortiz has "been convicted of a felony," reasoning that the jury does not need to hear the specific offenses or how many there were.

Was the judge's limitation proper?

Explanation. The majority held that for a non-defendant witness, Rule 609(a)(1) requires admission of qualifying prior felony convictions, including their nature and number, subject to Rule 403. Merely allowing the jury to hear that the witness has "a felony conviction" does not satisfy the rule, because the probative value varies with the type and number of convictions.