United States v. Paige

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 1978 · Evidence

464 F. Supp. 99 (E.D. Pa. 1978)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 609(a)(1)impeachmentprior convictionprobative valueprejudicial effectsimilar crimesdefendant testimony

Facts

The defendant had pleaded guilty in 1970 to violating 18 U.S.C. § 659 by possessing goods worth more than $100 stolen from a foreign shipment, knowing the goods were stolen. In the present case, he was charged with knowing receipt and concealment of stolen securities under 18 U.S.C. § 2315. Eight years had passed since the prior conviction, and the defendant had not been convicted of any other crimes during that time. He sought to exclude the prior conviction from use as impeachment if he testified at trial.

Issue

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), should the government be allowed to impeach the defendant with his eight-year-old prior conviction for possession of stolen goods when he is now charged with a similar stolen-property offense? Specifically, did the government show that the conviction's probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect?

Rule

Under Rule 609(a)(1), evidence of a prior felony conviction may be admitted to attack a defendant-witness's credibility only if the court determines that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, and the government bears that burden. In making that determination, the court should consider: (1) the impeachment value of the prior crime; (2) the time of the conviction and the witness's subsequent history; (3) the similarity between the past crime and the charged crime; (4) the importance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue.

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 prosecution in Chicago for receiving stolen computer parts, Darnell Price plans to testify that he bought the parts from a neighborhood reseller and did not know they were stolen. The government seeks to impeach him with a seven-year-old felony conviction for possessing stolen appliances, and Darnell has had no convictions since then.

If the court follows the governing Rule 609(a)(1) approach from the lead opinion, which result is most likely?

Explanation. Under Rule 609(a)(1), the government bears the burden of showing that the conviction’s probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. The lead opinion emphasized five factors: impeachment value, age and subsequent history, similarity, importance of the defendant’s testimony, and centrality of credibility. A seven-year-old stolen-property conviction with a clean intervening record has reduced probative value, and its similarity to the charged stolen-property offense creates substantial prejudice because jurors may use it as propensity evidence. That risk is especially serious where the defendant’s testimony is important to explain possession.