*1 binding final and this contract shall be parties.
on both UNITED STATES of America v. added.) (J.A. 70) (Emphasis SIMPSON,Appellant. Ernest E. charges stem from man- Cantrell’s him in in Colston directed ner which UNITED STATES of America disagree- employment. This thus a exclusively by pro- handled ment WILLIAMS,Appellant. Clarence E. provided contract.” cedures Nos. p. 732.) (Slip op. at Appeals, States Court Though procedures the arbitration District of Columbia Circuit. spelled in the contract called to out Argued May 22, 1970. Union, obstinately the attention 17, 1970. DecidedNov. disciplinary pro- went ahead with its own cedure, ultimately Rehearing Petition for resulted Denied March membership termination Colston’s many Union and with it the loss expulsion valuable benefits. Such then very well definite coercive on man
influence chosen the Com-
pany representative. In consider-
ing previously all the discussed surround-
ing necessarily seem circumstances tie Union’s insistence of
disciplining performance Colston for the foreman, duties the mail room find
we rec- substantial evidence support holding
ord to the Board’s 8(b) Union violation section (1) (B) of the Act.
Though particular we have decided this case, we are still confronted with the Judge, Fahy, Senior con- troubling problem discussed in we our part curred in and dissented in decision, e., difficulty earlier i. opinion. filed disposing heavy this court’s of its calen existing legal prob dar of “actual and being
lems” while at same time
bogged “infinitesimally down with small grievances.”
abstract Mailers Dallas
Union, supra, NLRB, Local No. at
733-734. It would seem that courts very spared
and the Board could well be consuming energy necessarily
the time
exhausted in the determination of
type dispute just considered us. problem admittedly
The solution to the easy capture,
not an one to nevertheless
honest most efforts reach one would be
welcomed.
Enforced.
736 the found that value of that taken
by appellants missing the two and their accomplice was less than the value re- grand quired larceny, for or indeed that missing jewelry the had not taken by all, though appellants at the even the jury appellants certain was that had burglarized jewelry the showcase cut- ting through glass and a hole the at- tempting jewelry. to remove giving Nor there error in was charge of so-called Allen3 as Fitzgerald, Washing- Mr. William J. original charge to District Court’s jury. D.C., ton, (appointed by Court) for objections may made Whatever appellant 23,269. in No. charge circum certain Allen Shorter, Jr., Washington, Mr. A. John objections stances, have even less those 23,270. D.C., appellant for in No. given charge force when Allen Cohan, Atty., Philip L. Asst. Mr. U. S. originally effort than in an rather later Flan with Messrs. Thomas A. whom jury. pry out of a deadlocked verdict nery, Atty., Terry and U. S. A. John In frequently form or another it has been one Kelley, Attys., Jr., E. James Asst. U. S. approved this court.4 brief, appellee. were on the for a Luck5 The court conducted trial Judge, FAHY, Before Circuit Senior hearing, it that advised which was WILKEY, and ROBINSON and ap- the date of this offense 1959 to Judges. pellant Simpson had convicted of robbery once. larceny and of twice he took stand the Government PER When CURIAM: sought permitted to introduce and was charged appellants were two only latest offense degree grand burglary1 and second larceny2 1962, some seven before this arising apparent theft of an out veracity. bearing honesty Ap- and Washington jewelry from a midtown previous pellant Simpson contends the burglary Both convicted store. preju- too too remote and conviction was grand larceny. guilty but found probative value dicial in relation We affirm. appellant’s with which urge apparent Appellants in an dissenting colleague agrees. our consistency jury But verdict. of convic the evidence We think missing jewelry re never since covered, was properly allowed tion of jury that the clear ABA the recommended version 1801(b). 22 § D.C.Code majority- Project' excludes —which 2. 22 D.C.Code promotion minority language —-was justice by administration the efficient States, 17 3. Allen United U.S. “recurring controversies, avoiding turn- (1896). S.Ct. 41 L.Ed. questions ing upon coercion subtle Johnson, 139 4. See United States v. U.S. (at 633). of each case.” context (1970) App.D.C. F.2d supervisory we exercised our Thereafter this court that form of where said compli- require prospectively, powers, jurors charge suggesting the Allen ABA recommendations ance with the ought minority position advocating a United the District Court. light findings reassess their 22,768 (D.C.Cir., Thomas, 6 Nov. No. majority was “not neces conclusion of 1970). likely, sarily, or even to be coercive U.S.App.D.C. * * (at 633.) 5. Luck v. basis in that Our (1965). opinion adoption F.2d 763 suggesting credibility Simpson the trial vant to his when es- purposes, impeachment sayed the role of witness. it was judge instructed ap- bearing upon only considered As to the remoteness of the convic- stand. on the witness pellant’s tion, we observe disallowing evi- such conviction A rule *3 equally the standard of Section within appear to an accused enable dence would (effective provide 1 14-305 which will him person character entitled whose as a 1971): February credence, facts of complete when the to Excluding contrary. his life are to any conviction of a No evidence of deny a would also valuable evidence such is under sec- witness admissible this argument who accused period ten if a tion of more than prior record. has elapsed has since the later of dis- judge his here exercised The trial (i) the date of the the wit- release of rele- of after a careful review cretion imposed for ness commitment is difficult to reverse It vant factors. any recent his most of decision the District Court’s offense, (ii) expira- criminal or discretion, ground when he abused his period parole, proba- tion of his determination was well within granted tion, imposed or sentence or Congress for parameters established respect his with recent convic- most February jurisdiction, 1 effective this any criminal tion of offense. 14 of the 14-305 of Title Section pro- appellant Simpson then We note that had District of Columbia Code will attacking purpose of for the 1962 vide that “for incarcerated eight burglary witness, credibility evidence of months a until of a this has convicted for he was While the witness convicted. considered, previously if of- offense shall admitted court has as our criminal be * * * colleague only dissenting points out, fered, of- criminal re- if the * * * dishonesty be moteness should measured from fense involved (regardless punish- previous conviction, of not re- or statement date of the false 6 congressional lease, standard the new this in accord ment.” And is measure from the date will proposed Rules remoteness of standard from his convic- of release most recent Dis- for the of United Evidence Appellant here tion. demonstrated Magistrates, had March Courts and trict capacity to lead life for a blameless Rules of 1969 draft of Committee on eight participation only months until his and Procedure of the Judicial Practice preliminary The draft Rule in this offense. United Conference 6-09(a).7 Appellant Simpson’s previous proposed for Rules of Evidence dishonesty, Courts, Rule 6- offense of States District involved complete 09(b), and was therefore and rele- also accord with admissible currently 6-09(a) 6. Section 14—305 on the reads: is silent 7. Rule types may purpose of convictions which be offer- For the GENERAL RULE. credibility attacking ed into of a wit- evidence affect language specific ness, he has been con- a witness. more evidence that only of this section enacted the Dis- of a crime admissible but victed (1) punishable by trict Columbia Court Reform and Crim- if the crime death July 1970, year imprisonment inal Procedure Act of or excess of one 91-358, eff. was con- Stat. Pub.L. under the law which he (2) dishonesty victed, or Feb. 1971. involved regardless pun- false statement ishment. Congress jury’s appraisal simply Simp- adopted by the standard as to which alone son’s the District of Columbia.8 admitted, guilt of the could be but of his any standard, judge was On burglary charge, as to which it of his reasonable well within the bounds correctly be While the court considered. matter, practical discretion As a here. use it instructed the limited if we were to conclude the trial was entitled to make of the 1962 convic- had abused his discretion on basis tion, plain as it it is to me has been any admissibility im- standard many judges commentators, see peachment purposes enunciated Bailey, my opinion in United States v. court, new remand for a and were to U.S.App.D.C. 242, 246-248, F.2d probably the case would not come 1240-1242 that evidence Court until after before the District said to conviction cannot such *4 February 1971, the Dis- at which time impact jury upon be limited in its a compelled follow trict Court would credibility. Rather the defendant’s statutory the new standard. inevitably jury generally influences the appellants are guilty Convictions both again to the effect he is that hereby he had been before. prejudice Affirmed. It the the that is extent of the issue conviction creates on the present guilt, not that conviction the Judge (concur- FAHY, Senior not I as does bear dissenting ring part, part): does, the sume it for me that has admissibility. test have of its would I convic- I in affirmance of the concur problem no limited if the effect could be Simp- In case of tion of Williams. the credibility. But when evidence son, made however, is a contention the has additional conviction the requires I which think reversal. prejudicial not effect for which it is against Simpson consist- The evidence admissible, problem I do a which have testimony primarily of one ed of the requires judgment me to reach a whether witness, police officer some who was prejudice arising non- from its Though ap- distance from the scene. outweighs admissible useful use its immediately pellants after were arrested purpose ness which it incident, jewelry none of the carefully trial court admissible. testimony indicated had stolen bearing considered the several factors man”, “third was found. There was a upon held of the the exercise discretion however, apprehended. In who was Luck court to admit to reside any jury acquitted Simpson of event the find exclude or the evidence. I do grand larceny,1 at the convict- same time in which the court error the manner ing degree burglary, him of indi- second approached problem. IYet Luck cating may have been that the conviction agree conclusion cannot compromise result doubts due to I was a error reached. think it serious jurors. these on the some In circumstances, robbery permit of 1962 I think the admis- conviction brought jury in this at sion conviction before might robbery convic well affected held in 1969. The trial trial period parole, proba- 6-09(b) 8. Rule reads: tion of the sentence, tion, or whichever LIMIT. TIME Evidence of a convic- later date. tion rule is if a under this inadmissible period elapsed 1. The reached this verdict notwith of more than has standing testimony jewelry since the date release of the wit- confinement, expira- $2,000.00. ness of the value of 2 and simi in time remote tion was both charge trial, each of which
lar to
COMPANY,
The MONTANA POWER
against
admissibility.
weighs
its
factors
Petitioner,
U.S.App.
Gordon v. United
v.
343, 347, 383 F.2d
D.C.
COMMISSION,
FEDERAL POWER
denied,
88 S.Ct.
cert.
390 U.S..
Respondent,
Moreover,
(1968).
1421,
Were done, I think should he re- be February
tried after and testi- again,
fied new statute would against
doubt invoked him unless a
certificate rehabilitation referred I
in the statute were available to him.4 however, speculate,
do as to what not pursued
course would be at the
upon of it if a conviction re- our review appealed.
sulted and it were my following Appellant brethren 3. As to the comment was incarcerated July 19, eight record defendant’s admission 1962 conviction until standing strengthens Yet the offense on trial. months record, under- against I mitigate do without a fact does not up- evidentiary previous rule rests conviction. stand that remoteness premise. McCord, on such a U.S. In United States App.D.C. 5, 420 F.2d clarify the itself does not 4. The statute is to a determination we said such can a certificate which such method conviction, time be made from the be made available. is re- accused when the from the date prison. leased