## Facts

- Two armed men robbed the Seventh Street branch of the National Bank of Washington on November 11, 1974, disarming the bank’s private guard, taking $13,214, and stealing the guard’s revolver.
- One robber stood watch while the other entered the manager’s office and teller area and filled a brown paper bag with cash; the robbery lasted less than five minutes.
- Three key witnesses (the guard, branch manager, and a teller) later identified Tyrone Smith and Anthony Gartrell as the robbers.
- Identification evidence included bank surveillance images and police photographic arrays shown to the witnesses before the arrests; the surveillance images were also shown shortly after the robbery and again on the day of trial.
- Smith and Gartrell were indicted on February 12, 1975, tried jointly, and convicted of armed bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) and armed robbery of the guard’s gun (D.C. Code §§ 22-2901, 22-3202 (1973)).
- Before trial, the district court ruled that if Gartrell testified, the government could impeach him with a prior attempted-robbery conviction; Gartrell did not testify.

## Issues

1. Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress in-court identifications allegedly tainted by suggestive pretrial photo displays.
2. Whether the district court erred under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a) by ruling that Gartrell’s prior attempted-robbery conviction was admissible for impeachment without the required probative-value versus prejudice balancing, and whether any error was harmless.

## Decision

- The court held that neither defendant was denied reasonably competent representation; the ineffective-assistance claims failed.
- The court held the district court did not properly apply Rule 609(a) to the proposed impeachment of Gartrell with his prior conviction.
- The Rule 609(a) error was not harmless because it may have affected Gartrell’s decision whether to testify.
- Smith’s conviction was affirmed.
- Gartrell’s case was remanded for the district court to reconsider the impeachment ruling under the correct Rule 609(a) standards and for further proceedings consistent with that reconsideration.

## Legal Principles

- Effective assistance of counsel requires reasonably competent representation; informed strategic decisions about whether to pursue suppression of identification evidence generally do not constitute ineffective assistance absent a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
- Pretrial identification procedures must be assessed for impermissible suggestiveness, but counsel is not constitutionally ineffective solely for choosing cross-examination and argument over a suppression motion where suppression is not clearly warranted.
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a), impeachment by prior conviction is not automatic; for qualifying convictions, the court must determine whether probative value on credibility outweighs prejudicial effect to the accused.
- The proponent of admitting a prior conviction for impeachment bears the burden of showing admissibility under Rule 609(a), and the trial court must conduct an explicit balancing consistent with the rule.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld the convictions against claims that counsel mishandled identification evidence, but remanded as to Gartrell because the trial court permitted impeachment by prior conviction without applying the Rule 609(a) balancing required to assess probative value against unfair prejudice.


United States v. Smith, 551 F.2d 348 (D.C. Cir. 1976)