UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN R. CLUCK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
It is error to impeach a witness's credibility using extrinsic evidence of conduct that has not resulted in a criminal conviction.
Appellant was convicted of importing a stolen firearm. During cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned him about prior charges, and a rebuttal wit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
John R. Cluck appeals from his conviction for importing a stolen firearm into the United States from Mexico. He testified in his own behalf, attempting to explain that the firearm was not stolen. On cross-examination the Assistant United State Attorney asked him, over defense objection:
“Now you are the same John Rexford Cluck that was charged in Beaumont, Texas for unlawfully carrying a weapon on 12-31-75?”
“Yes sir.”
“Are you the same John Rexford Cluck that was charged in Beaumont, Texas, on 12-31-75 for possession of stolen property?”
“No sir.”
The district court then instructed the jury that the questions were asked for the sole purpose of testing the credibility of the witness.
The government then called as a rebuttal witness a Beaumont policeman who testified that appellant was arrested in Beaumont on December 31, 1975, for possession of stolen property. There is no evidence of the disposition of either charge.
Appellant contends that it was error to admit, for impeachment purposes, evidence of his arrest and accusation of crimes for which there was no evidence of convictions. The government has filed no brief, but it has advised this Court that it does not oppose the appellant’s request for reversal and a new trial.
It is error to attack a witness’s credibility by using extrinsic evidence of his conduct that has not resulted in conviction of a crime. Fed.R.Evid. 608(b) (1975). The government makes no argument that the error here was harmless. We therefore hold that permitting the testimony of the Beaumont policeman to be introduced was reversible error. Cf., United States v. Musgrave, 483 F. 2d 327, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1023, 94 S.Ct. 447, 38 L.Ed.2d 315 (1973).
The conviction is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Herman, 589 F.2d 1191 (3d Cir. 1978)
-
United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1986)
-
United States v. Ruiz, 579 F.2d 670 (1st Cir. 1978)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Musgrave, 483 F.2d 327 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Superior Court of N.J. v. Russo, 414 U.S. 1023 (U.S. 1973)
- Sclafani v. United States, 414 U.S. 1023 (U.S. 1973)