738 F.3d 878
7th Cir.2013Background
- Rucker was tried for one count of wire fraud arising from a 2008 mortgage transaction for 3758 Buchanan Street; a jury convicted him and the district court sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment and restitution.
- The scheme involved false loan documents, a fabricated $44,000 mechanics lien, a $4,000 purported gift, and $20,000 in post-closing payouts (including $10,000 to Rucker and $10,000 to the buyer, Smith).
- Co-defendant Sheila Chandler pleaded guilty to multiple wire-fraud counts and testified for the government about forging documents and preparing the fake gift letter; she also had a 2000 conviction for theft involving federally funded programs (five years’ probation).
- Defense sought to impeach Chandler with her 2000 conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) (more than 10 years old); the district court excluded it as remote and cumulative because Chandler had admitted numerous more recent convictions and already disparaged her own credibility at trial.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the exclusion for abuse of discretion and affirmed, finding the remote conviction’s probative value did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect given abundant other impeachment and corroborating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Rucker's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under FRE 609(b) of Chandler’s 2000 conviction (remote) to impeach her testimony | The 2000 conviction bore on Chandler’s credibility and was especially probative because it contradicted her claim that she began lying in 2004; her credibility was central to the case | The conviction was remote, cumulative of many admitted more-recent convictions, and added little probative value; exclusion was within district court discretion | Affirmed: exclusion was not an abuse of discretion because the conviction was remote and cumulative and its probative value did not substantially outweigh prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henderson, 736 F.3d 1128 (7th Cir. 2013) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Redditt, 381 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2004) (remote convictions under Rule 609(b) are admissible only rarely and in exceptional circumstances)
- United States v. Rogers, 542 F.3d 197 (7th Cir. 2008) (probation does not count as confinement for Rule 609(b)’s ten-year limit)
- United States v. Roberts, 534 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2008) (intent to defraud may be proved through circumstantial evidence and inferences from the scheme)
- United States v. Heath, 447 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2006) (district court did not err excluding remote convictions that would be cumulative of admitted evidence)
- United States v. Gray, 410 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 2005) (no abuse in excluding remote prior conviction where multiple within-ten-year convictions were admitted)