Impeachment & Crimen Falsi - Rule 609

Bucks County Impeachment Procedures

Sometimes, a prosecutor will try and "impeach" a witness by using prior bad acts.  They rely on Rule 609- Impeachment by Evidence of a Criminal Conviction.  The rule states, "For the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime, whether by verdict or by plea of guilty or nolo contendere, must be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement."  There is a 10-year look back issue, but I will not be covering that section here.  

Essentially, if you have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty or false statement, the prosecutor can try and use that prior act to show you are not credible if you testify.  They may also do that for any witnesses you intend to introduce.  

Caselaw for Crimes of Dishonesty or False Statement

The well-treated case involving these issues is Commonwealth v. Palo, 2011 PA Super 136 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011).  The court in this case considered the following factors:

1) the degree to which the commission of the prior offense reflects upon the veracity of the defendant-witness; 

2) the likelihood, in view of the nature and extent of the prior record, that it would have a greater tendency to smear the character of the defendant and suggest a propensity to commit the crime for which he stands charged, rather than provide a legitimate reason for discrediting him as an untruthful person; 

3) the age and circumstances of the defendant; 

4) the strength of the prosecution's case and the prosecution's need to resort to this evidence as compared with the availability to the defense of other witnesses through which its version of the events surrounding the incident can be presented; and 

5) the existence of alternative means of attacking the defendant's credibility.  

Also, the court in Palo “adopted the trial court's reasoning as it pertained to balancing the probative value of the prior crimes evidence with their prejudicial effect.”  The court concluded that because the State had one witness and the defense had another witness, then it was critical to hear everything you could about the “believability” of the witnesses.  

As you can see, it is tough to keep out a prior crime of dishonesty if a person has a conviction and intends to testify.