Donald Dean Thurman v. United States
1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5586 · 316 F.2d 205
April 16, 1963 · Docket 18236_1
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The trial court asked leading questions about the appellant’s alleged criminal acts that did not result in convictions. The court held that without a showing of a common scheme or plan, unconvicted conduct cannot be used to attack credibility.
- Headnote 2
The appellate court found that the trial judge’s use of leading questions to suggest the appellant’s participation in specific unconvicted acts was improper and could not be justified as impeachment.
- Headnote 3
The court noted that the danger of the jury inferring guilt from unrelated criminal conduct is so strong that the admission is obviously prejudicial, requiring a reversal unless the government proves no effect on the verdict.
- Headnote 4
The appellate court held that questioning the co‑conspirator witness about possible bias from a hoped‑for sentence reduction was proper and that the trial judge erred in limiting that cross‑examination.
- Headnote 5
The trial court used leading questions to elicit the defendant’s alleged unconvicted criminal acts. The court held that without a conviction or a showing that the acts demonstrated a common scheme, the questions were not justified as impeachment and constituted reversible error.
- Headnote 6
The court found the admission of unconvicted conduct was extremely prejudicial, likely leading jurors to infer guilt. Because the prejudice was not shown to be harmless, the error warranted a new trial.
- Headnote 7
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s limitation on cross‑examining the co‑conspirator witness about possible sentence‑reduction bias, noting that bias is always relevant to credibility and must be fully explored.
Opinion
1. 1. It was error to suggest by leading questions on cross-examination of appellant that he had participated in specific acts of criminal conduct, not resulting in convictions, other than those with which he was charged. The questions could not be justified as impeachment;' “only a conviction . . . . may be inquired about to undermine the trustworthiness of a witness.” Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 482, 69 S.Ct. 213, 93 L.Ed. 168 (1948) (emphasis added); United States v. Provoo, 215 F.2d 531, 536 (2d Cir. 1954). Nor were the acts relevant to prove a common scheme or plan, as the government now contends, for there was not the slightest evidence that appellant was in fact connected in any way with these incidents, nor they with the crime charged.
The government suggests that the error was “technical” and, in the light of the whole record, harmless. But the prejudicial effect of such material is notorious. 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 194 (3d ed. 1940); McCormick, Evidence 327 (1954). Indeed, the danger is so strong that the jury will infer from unrelated criminal conduct that the defendant probably ’ committed the offense charged, or will condemn the defendant either for the unrelated conduct or simply because he is a bad person, regardless of his guilt or innocence of the offense charged, that admission of such material is treated as obviously prejudicial and admonitory instructions are commonly considered in-efficacious. See, e. g., United States v. Magee, 261 F.2d 609 (7th Cir. 1958); Sang Soon Sur v. United States, 167 F.2d 431, 433 (9th Cir. 1948). Cf. Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310, 79 S.Ct. 1171, 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 (1959); United States v. Jacangelo, 281 F.2d 574 (3d Cir., 1960).
We cannot say that in this case the error “did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect.” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1247, 90 L.Ed. 551 (1946). See Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 79, 79 S.Ct. 136, 3 L.Ed.2d 125 (1958). There must, therefore, be a new trial.
2. 2. Appellant asserts that certain remarks of the trial judge limited the cross-examination of the principal government witness, a co-conspirator who had pleaded guilty and whose prior sentence was still subject to modification. It is not likely that the incident will reeure, but it may be well to say that cross-examination directed to the possible bias or prejudice of this witness, arising from the hope that his own sentence might be reduced as a result of his testimony, was clearly proper. United States v. Hogan, 232 F.2d 905 (3d Cir. 1956); Farkas v. United States, 2 F.2d 644, 647 (6th Cir. 1924). Appellant was entitled to explore it fully and to have the benefit of whatever effect it might have had upon the jury.