## Facts

- Howard Thomas Lollar was convicted in the Northern District of Alabama of transporting stolen property worth more than $5,000 in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
- The prosecution alleged that Lollar and several employees stole property from a warehouse in West Milford, New Jersey, and transported it across state lines.
- Lollar testified in his own defense.
- After Lollar testified, the government recalled a former employer and asked whether the witness would believe Lollar under oath.
- Over objection, the court allowed the witness to answer that he would not believe Lollar under oath.
- Officer Raymond Ackerman testified about encountering Lollar and associates in a van at a rest area the night before the theft.
- Lollar argued the encounter lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion and that the officer’s testimony should have been excluded as the product of a Fourth Amendment violation.
- The encounter did not result in an arrest or the seizure of incriminating evidence, and Lollar’s testimony substantially matched the officer’s account.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a) permits a witness to give opinion testimony that he would not believe the defendant under oath to attack the defendant’s character for truthfulness.
2. Whether admitting an officer’s testimony describing an allegedly unlawful encounter violated the Fourth Amendment and, if so, required reversal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the district court did not err by admitting the former employer’s opinion testimony attacking Lollar’s truthfulness under Rule 608(a).
- The court held that admitting Officer Ackerman’s testimony did not warrant reversal; any arguable constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overall record, including the lack of seized evidence and Lollar’s corroboration.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a), a witness’s credibility may be attacked with opinion or reputation evidence regarding character for truthfulness.
- Rule 608(a) does not require a prerequisite showing of long acquaintance or detailed foundational facts before opinion testimony on truthfulness is admissible; weaknesses such as bias or limited familiarity are addressed through cross-examination.
- Even if testimony is connected to an arguably unconstitutional police encounter, reversal is not required where the admission is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, including where no incriminating evidence was obtained and the challenged testimony was not essential to the prosecution’s proof.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld Lollar’s conviction, ruling that Rule 608(a) authorized direct opinion impeachment of his truthfulness and that any Fourth Amendment problem tied to an officer’s rest-area encounter testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on the record presented.


United States v. Lollar, 606 F.2d 587 (5th Cir. 1979)