United States v. Jackson (1975)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 1975 · Evidence

405 F. Supp. 938 (E.D.N.Y. 1975)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFederal Rules of EvidenceRule 609Rule 403Rule 401Rule 102impeachmentprior conviction

Facts

The defendant was accused of robbing a bank at gunpoint. He had a recent state felony conviction for assault, a crime the court described as not involving dishonesty or false statement, and sought to prevent its use for impeachment if he testified. He also sought to exclude evidence that he was in Georgia shortly after the robbery and used a false name when stopped there, where he was arrested for driving without a license and false identification was found. The government viewed the Georgia evidence as proof of flight and consciousness of guilt, while the defendant argued its prejudice outweighed its value.

Issue

Whether, under Rule 609(a), the defendant's recent assault felony could be used to impeach him if he testified, and whether, under Rule 403, evidence of his presence in Georgia and use of a false name shortly after the robbery should be excluded because of unfair prejudice. The court also had to decide whether either exclusion could properly be conditioned to prevent unfair advantage from the exclusion.

Rule

Under Rule 609(a), a defendant's prior felony conviction that does not involve dishonesty or false statement is admissible for impeachment only if its probative value on credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. Trial courts should make that ruling as early as possible after the issue is raised so the defense can make informed trial choices. Under Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, or similar costs, and Rules 403 and 102 permit flexible, conditional rulings, including exclusion conditioned on stipulations or on preventing a party from creating a misleading impression.

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 federal jewelry-store robbery trial in Cleveland, Devon Price plans to testify. The prosecution seeks to impeach him with a recent Ohio felony conviction for aggravated assault. The government also has store video, two eyewitnesses, and cell-site evidence placing Devon near the scene.

How should the trial court most likely rule on Devon's pretrial motion to exclude the assault conviction if he testifies?

Explanation. Under Rule 609(a) as applied in the opinion, a prior felony not involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible against a defendant only if its probative value on credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. Assaultive conduct has little bearing on truthfulness, and where the prosecution already has significant independent proof, the need to impeach with the conviction is reduced. The conviction should therefore be excluded.