United States v. Pisari

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Evidence

EvidenceImpeachmentOther crimes evidenceIdentityHarmless errorRule 404(b)identitysignature crime

Facts

The government's case relied primarily on eyewitness identifications by two pharmacy employees who identified Pisari as one of the robbers. Before the defense case, the government sought to call Agent Coombs to testify that three months before the charged robbery Pisari told him he had robbed a drug dealer using a knife, arguing the prior act was probative of identity; the court deferred ruling. Pisari then testified to an alibi, and on cross-examination denied committing any robberies by knife in late 1977. The district court admitted Coombs's rebuttal testimony solely on the limited issue of Pisari's credibility.

Issue

Whether the district court could admit extrinsic rebuttal testimony that the defendant had previously said he committed a knife robbery, either as impeachment by prior inconsistent statement or as other-crimes evidence proving identity under Rule 404(b). If the evidence was improperly admitted, the court also had to decide whether the error was harmless.

Rule

A denial on cross-examination concerning a collateral matter may not be contradicted by extrinsic evidence. A matter is collateral if the fact underlying the supposed contradiction could not have been shown independently for some legitimate purpose. Other-crimes evidence offered to prove identity under Rule 404(b) is admissible only when the prior act and charged act share sufficiently unusual, distinctive, and idiosyncratic characteristics to mark them as the handiwork of the same person; mere commission of the same class of crime, or use of a common weapon such as a knife, is not enough.

🔒

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 robbery trial in Providence, Jordan Mendez testifies that he was at a family dinner in Newport when a neighborhood pharmacy was robbed. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks whether Jordan committed any knife robberies the previous winter, and Jordan says no. The prosecutor then calls an undercover informant to testify that Jordan once claimed he had robbed a street dealer with a knife in Hartford.

Should the trial court admit the informant's testimony solely to impeach Jordan's credibility?

Explanation. The majority held that a denial on cross-examination about a collateral matter cannot be contradicted by extrinsic evidence. The key test is whether the fact underlying the contradiction could have been shown independently for some legitimate purpose. A bare claim of another knife robbery is not independently admissible to prove identity absent distinctive, signature-like similarities, so the rebuttal testimony is improper. (Derived from United States v. Pisari (n.d.).)