Impeachment by Conviction Evidence: Judicial Discretion and the Politics of Rule 609

Authors

Victor Gold, Loyola Law School

Abstract

No provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence has sparked more controversy than Rule 609, which deals with the admissibility of convictions to impeach a witness. When first proposed, the provision was the subject of fierce debate, sparking repeated revision during its drafting and while it was under consideration by Congress. Ultimately, no one side in this legislative battle prevailed entirely; the Rule strikes a compromise between sharply conflicting policies. The text of Rule 609, incorporating no less than three balancing tests, two references to fairness, one to justice, and several other undefined terms, leaves the task of resolving the many questions raised by these policy conflicts to the courts.

Keywords

Evidence, Impeachment, Checks and Balances, Judicial Discretion, Judges, Politics (General), Criminal Law and Procedure, Psychiatry and Psychology

Disciplines

Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Evidence | Judges | Law | Psychology

Recommended Citation

Victor Gold, Impeachment by Conviction Evidence: Judicial Discretion and the Politics of Rule 609, 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 2295 (1994).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol15/iss6/21