## Facts

- Frank W. Cathey was indicted for willfully attempting to evade federal income taxes for 1970–1972, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
- A jury convicted Cathey on three counts; the district court imposed concurrent one-year prison terms and fines of $5,000 per count.
- Cathey testified in his own defense, making his credibility a central issue at trial.
- Over objection, the government impeached Cathey on cross-examination with a military larceny conviction that was more than 16 years old.
- The government also impeached Cathey by highlighting multiple contradictions and misstatements in his trial testimony.
- Cathey sought dismissal of the indictment, alleging an IRS agent gave materially false testimony to the grand jury and the prosecution failed to correct it.
- Cathey also alleged violations of the Jencks Act based on purported failures to produce witness statements.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged materially false grand jury testimony by an IRS agent, and the prosecution’s failure to correct it, required dismissal of the indictment on due process grounds.
2. Whether any failure to produce witness statements required by the Jencks Act warranted a new trial.
3. Whether admitting a 16-year-old military larceny conviction to impeach Cathey violated Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit rejected Cathey’s grand jury misconduct claim and declined to decide whether to adopt a constitutional rule requiring dismissal when an indictment rests on known, material perjury.
- The court found no merit in Cathey’s Jencks Act claims.
- The court held that admission of the 16-year-old larceny conviction for impeachment was prejudicial error under Rule 609(b).
- The convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 609(b), convictions more than ten years old are generally inadmissible for impeachment and may be admitted only if their probative value on credibility, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
- When a defendant’s credibility is central, the marginal probative value of a remote conviction is reduced, and the risk of unfair prejudice is heightened.
- An evidentiary error admitting a remote conviction is reversible when it likely affected the jury’s assessment of credibility, particularly where other impeachment evidence was already available.
- Claims that an indictment is invalid due to false grand jury testimony require a showing of knowing, material falsity sufficient to implicate due process; absent that showing, dismissal is not warranted.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court improperly allowed impeachment with a highly remote larceny conviction in violation of Rule 609(b), and the error was prejudicial given the role of credibility at trial.


United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1979)