Brackeen was arrested and charged with robbing three
banks.
In the first robbery, Brackeen operated with an
accomplice named Moore, who had a gun, in the second two he operated
alone and unarmed.
Brackeen pleaded guilty to the second two robberies, but
for the first robbery, he claimed that he did know that Moore was armed.
Armed robbery had much higher punishments than unarmed
robbery.
At trial, Brackeen took the stand to testify. On
cross-examination, the prosecution attempted to introduce evidence of
Brackeen's two guilty pleas.
Brackeen objected on the grounds that the evidence was
inadmissible.
The Trial Judge allowed the evidence to be admitted under FRE
609(a)(2).
FRE 609(a)(2) allows for impeachment of a
defendant for any crime involving "dishonesty or false
statement."
The prosecution argued that bank robbery is stealing,
which is inherently dishonest.
The Trial Court found Brackeen guilty of the armed
robbery. He appealed.
The Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The Appellate Court found that the term "dishonesty"
only refers to those crimes involving deceit, such as perjury, fraud, or
embezzlement.
Since bank robbery is not a crime of deceit, evidence of
a prior conviction for bank robbery cannot be admitted under FRE
609(a)(2).
It could be admitted under FRE 609(a)(1), but
there would need to be a balancing test to determine if the evidence's
probative value outweighed it's prejudicial effect.
