United States v. MARTIN, 1:24-cr-00196

The government sought to use defendant Marvin Martin’s 2013 Maryland robbery conviction to impeach him if he chose to testify at his upcoming drug trafficking trial.
Martin was arrested in 2024 for allegedly attempting to possess with intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled substance after retrieving a package from a controlled delivery.
The 2013 conviction involved a plea to conspiracy to commit robbery, for which Martin was released from custody in July 2014.
The trial is set for July 14, 2025, which is more than 10 years after Martin's release from the prior conviction.
The parties disputed whether Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) or the stricter Rule 609(b) applies, and if the prior conviction's probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
The government provided proper notice of intent to use the conviction, and Martin moved to exclude it under Rule 609(b), citing undue prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Which rule applies (609(a) or 609(b))	Rule 609(a) applies because conviction is within 10 years of offense or indictment.	Rule 609(b) applies since trial start is over 10 years after release.	Rule 609(b) applies; trial date is the key end date.
Probative vs. prejudicial balancing under 609(b)	The conviction has high probative value due to its seriousness and proximity in time; minimal prejudice as it differs from drug charge.	Conviction is stale, from youth, and would cause substantial unfair prejudice outweighing any probative value.	Prejudice outweighs limited probative value; conviction excluded.
End date for the ten-year rule	Should be indictment/offense date to prevent gamesmanship.	Should be trial start or testimony date, matching probativeness at time of testimony.	Trial start used as end date; policy and majority rule support this.
Importance of defendant's credibility	Prior crime crucial for impeaching credibility if Martin testifies.	Admission would unfairly inflame jury against him and is not probative of truthfulness.	Credibility is important, but the risk of unfair prejudice controls.

United States v. Lipscomb, 702 F.2d 1049 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (explains the general admissibility and balancing standards for prior convictions under Rule 609)
United States v. Jackson, 627 F.2d 1198 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (sets out balancing factors for admitting old convictions for impeachment)
United States v. Thompson, 806 F.2d 1332 (7th Cir. 1986) (supports calculating ten-year period from the start of trial)
United States v. Nguyen, 542 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 2008) (adopts the start of trial as the ten-year rule end date)
United States v. Daniel, 957 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1992) (notes timing for assessing age of prior convictions under Rule 609)