United States v. Meserve

271 F.3d 314 (2001)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Meserve

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
271 F.3d 314 (2001)

Facts

Brian Eugene Meserve (defendant) was convicted of robbery and firearm offenses. During his trial, Meserve called his brother, Kevin, as a witness in his defense. During direct examination, Meserve elicited testimony from Kevin about his relatively recent conviction for unlawful sexual contact. During cross-examination, the government then questioned Kevin whether he had other convictions. Kevin answered that he had. The government then questioned whether the conviction had occurred in 1979, more than 20 years before trial. Meserve’s attorney objected, arguing that the question violated Federal Rule of Evidence 609. The court overruled the objection. The government then questioned Kevin whether he had been in a lot of fights. Meserve’s attorney objected before Kevin’s answer, citing improper character evidence for impeachment. The court overruled the objection. The government then asked three more questions about Kevin’s fighting history, and then Meserve’s attorney again interjected with a continuing objection, arguing that the questions about Kevin’s history for fighting were irrelevant and improper character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 608. The court permitted the questions. Meserve’s attorney did not move to strike Kevin’s answers to the questions. Following his conviction, Meserve appealed, arguing that the court erred in admitting evidence of Kevin’s prior convictions and character. The government opposed the appeal, arguing that Meserve had not properly preserved the issues for appeal, because he did not timely object and move to strike.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Young, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership