## Facts

- Richard M. Penta was convicted in federal court (June 1970) of fraudulently possessing and transferring counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472 and 473.
- Penta testified and asserted entrapment as his sole defense, alleging inducement by a government agent.
- At trial, Penta’s credibility was impeached with prior Massachusetts convictions for concealing stolen motor vehicles; defense counsel brought out the convictions on direct examination as a tactical measure.
- After the federal conviction was affirmed on direct appeal (December 1970), Massachusetts courts reversed the prior state convictions (May 1972) because evidence supporting them resulted from an illegal search and seizure.
- Penta moved for a new federal trial, arguing that impeachment with convictions later invalidated tainted the jury’s credibility assessment; the district court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Penta was barred from challenging impeachment by prior convictions because defense counsel elicited the convictions on direct examination.
2. Whether the subsequent reversal of state convictions used to impeach Penta required a new federal trial due to resulting prejudice, particularly where credibility was central to an entrapment defense.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial.
- The court rejected the government’s argument that Penta waived the claim by “drawing the sting” on direct examination, treating counsel’s tactic as a good-faith response to anticipated impeachment.
- The court held that the later reversal of the state convictions did not, by itself, justify a new trial; relief depended on a showing of sufficient prejudice on the full trial record.
- A separate concurrence emphasized evaluating the effect of the invalid conviction evidence in context rather than applying an automatic reversal rule.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is not necessarily precluded from seeking post-trial relief based on later-invalidated impeachment convictions merely because defense counsel introduced the convictions first as a trial tactic.
- When prior convictions used solely for impeachment are later reversed, a new trial is not automatic; the court assesses whether their use caused prejudice substantial enough to undermine confidence in the verdict.
- The prejudice inquiry considers the role the impeachment played at trial, the issues on which credibility mattered, and the overall evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The court held that Penta could challenge the use of prior convictions despite counsel’s tactical disclosure, but that the subsequent reversal of those convictions did not warrant a new federal trial absent a record-based showing of substantial prejudice.


United States v. Penta, 475 F.2d 92 (1st Cir. 1973)