## Facts

- Morris Stanley Browne was indicted in federal court for armed bank robbery and for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence; a felon-in-possession count was severed before trial.
- Browne proceeded to jury trial on the armed bank robbery and firearm counts.
- Browne testified and presented an alibi that depended largely on his own account and lacked corroboration.
- During testimony, Browne also portrayed himself as honest and of good character and acknowledged an older forgery conviction.
- The district court declined to give a binding pretrial ruling on whether Browne’s prior convictions could be used for impeachment, indicating only tentative views before trial.
- After Browne testified, the district court permitted the government to impeach him with a recent prior bank-robbery conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a).
- The jury convicted Browne on both counts, and the district court imposed a 30-year sentence (25 years on the robbery count plus a consecutive 5 years on the firearm count).
- Browne appealed, challenging (among other things) the lack of a binding pretrial Rule 609 ruling and the admission of the prior robbery conviction for impeachment.

## Issues

1. Whether a criminal defendant is entitled to a definitive, binding pretrial ruling on the admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Rule 609(a)(1) by admitting a recent prior bank-robbery conviction to impeach the defendant after he testified.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in refusing to issue a binding pretrial Rule 609 ruling and in deferring the final decision until after hearing the defendant’s testimony.
- The court held that admitting the prior bank-robbery conviction for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(1) was not an abuse of discretion because its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect in the circumstances of the case.

## Legal Principles

- A district court is not required to issue a binding pretrial ruling on impeachment by prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609; it may postpone the decision until the defendant’s testimony is known.
- In applying Rule 609(a)(1) to impeach a testifying criminal defendant with a felony conviction, the court must determine whether probative value outweighs prejudicial effect.
- Rule 609(a)(1) balancing commonly considers: (1) the impeachment value of the prior crime, (2) the recency or remoteness of the conviction, (3) the similarity between the prior crime and the charged offense (and the resulting risk of propensity use), and (4) how central the defendant’s credibility is to the case.
- When the defendant’s credibility is a central issue—such as when the defense rests on an uncorroborated alibi and the defendant places character at issue—prior convictions may carry increased impeachment value, even if the prior offense is similar to the charged crime.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Rule 609 in-limine determinations are discretionary and may be deferred until after testimony, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Browne’s recent prior robbery conviction for impeachment after finding its probative value outweighed prejudice given the centrality of his credibility.


United States v. Browne, 829 F.2d 760 (9th Cir. 1987)