UNITED STATES V. BRACKEEN
969 F.2d 827 (1992)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Brackeen (D) petitioned for review, claiming the Court erred in
ruling that bank robbery was per se a crime of 'dishonesty' under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2),
and permitting prosecution to impeach appellant with his guilty pleas to two counts of
unarmed bank robbery.
FACTS: Brackeen (D) robbed three different banks on three separate days in July, 1990.
During the first robbery, D was accompanied by Moore, who used a pistol during commission of
the robbery. In the other two robberies, D was apparently unarmed and acting alone. D was
indicted for the three robberies, and pleaded guilty to the last two. He went to trial on
the first robbery, charged with aiding and abetting Moore. During the trial, D indicated he
would take the stand, and objected to use of the guilty pleas to impeach his testimony. The
trial court expressly refused to admit the pleas as felony convictions under 609 (a)(1),
ruling them admissible as crimes involving dishonesty under 609(a)(2). The court noted that,
since they were crimes of dishonesty, the prosecution had an absolute right to use them to
impeach D. D appeals, claiming among other things, that bank robbery is not a crime
involving dishonesty or false statement as required by 609(a)(2).
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment