United States v. Lipscomb
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
702 F.2d 1049 (1983)
At Lipscomb’s first trial for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, which resulted in a hung jury, he testified and was impeached with evidence regarding his prior robbery conviction from eight years earlier. On retrial, Lipscomb filed a motion in limine to preclude cross-examination regarding his prior conviction. The trial court denied Lipscomb’s motion, holding that cross-examining Lipscomb on his prior conviction was permissible under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 609(a)(1). As a result, Lipscomb decided not to testify, however, the prosecutor impeached three of Lipscomb’s defense witnesses, Floyd Little, Daryl Smith and Robert Green, on the basis of their prior convictions. In allowing this impeachment evidence, the trial court concluded: (1) with regard to Smith who had been convicted of armed robbery one year earlier, that an armed robber would also lie under oath, and (2) with regard to Little’s conviction for armed robbery five years earlier and Green’s conviction for being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter five years earlier, that the probative value of the convictions outweighed their prejudicial effect. Lipscomb was convicted after his second trial and filed a motion for a new trial. The court held a hearing and asked the government to produce additional evidence regarding the prior convictions. The government produced evidence showing that Lipscomb and two others robbed a man with a BB gun, taking $13 and a hat and coat for which Lipscomb received three years’ probation but his probation was revoked and an indeterminate sentence imposed after various probation violations, including convictions for several burglaries. The prosecution also showed that: (1) Smith had robbed a man at gunpoint and stole his car and was convicted after pleading not guilty; (2) Little also robbed a man at gunpoint and was convicted after pleading not guilty; and (3) Green had helped others to rob an eighteen-year-old boy who the others stabbed after which they fled to Green’s house. Green was convicted after pleading guilty because all of the witnesses testified for the government. Lipscomb appealed his conviction, asserting that the district court generally must inquire into the underlying facts and circumstances of the before admitting evidence of prior convictions under FRE 609(a)(1). The government argues on appeal that the district court should not be permitted to make such an inquiry, or if the court is permitted to inquire into the facts and circumstances of the prior conviction, the court should be discouraged from doing so because the inquiry will be burdensome and unlikely to yield helpful information.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wald, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.