## Facts

- Michael Lipscomb was tried for possession of heroin with intent to distribute.
- At his first trial, Lipscomb testified and was impeached with an eight-year-old robbery conviction; the jury failed to reach a verdict.
- Before the second trial, the district court ruled that if Lipscomb testified, the government could impeach him with the same robbery conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1).
- The district court also allowed impeachment of three defense witnesses with their prior felony convictions: armed robbery convictions for Floyd Little and Daryl Smith, and an accessory-after-the-fact-to-manslaughter conviction for Robert Green.
- Lipscomb did not testify at the second trial and was convicted.
- After trial, Lipscomb sought a new trial, arguing the court had not sufficiently examined the “facts and circumstances” of the prior convictions before allowing impeachment.
- At the post-trial hearing, the judge received more detail about the prior crimes but denied a new trial, and Lipscomb appealed.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), must a trial court inquire into the underlying facts and circumstances of a prior felony conviction before balancing probative value against prejudicial effect?
2. What is the scope of a trial court’s discretion in determining how much information is needed to conduct the Rule 609(a)(1) balancing?

## Decision

- The en banc court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that Rule 609(a)(1) commits to the trial court’s discretion whether to inquire into, and how far to explore, the underlying facts of a prior felony conviction when conducting the probative-value/prejudice balance.
- The court rejected both a categorical requirement of factual inquiry and a categorical rule discouraging inquiry.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling the convictions could be used to impeach Lipscomb (if he testified) and the defense witnesses.
- The court treated Lipscomb’s decision not to testify as a tactical decision rather than the product of legal error.

## Legal Principles

- Under FRE 609(a)(1), a felony conviction less than ten years old has probative value on credibility and may be admitted to impeach a witness if the court finds its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused.
- The Rule 609(a)(1) balancing is case-specific and is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.
- In conducting the balance, a court may consider the nature of the crime, recency or remoteness, similarity to the charged offense, and the importance of credibility at trial.
- Inquiry into the underlying facts of the conviction can assist the balancing analysis, but the rule does not require any fixed degree of factual development; the trial judge determines what additional background is needed.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Lipscomb’s conviction and held that, under Rule 609(a)(1), trial courts have broad discretion both to admit qualifying felony convictions for impeachment after weighing probative value against prejudice and to determine how much underlying factual information is necessary to perform that balancing.


United States v. Lipscomb, 702 F.2d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc)