IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) CRIMINAL ACTION

v. ) NO. xxxxxxxxxxxxx

)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx )

__________________________________________)

MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE

USE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS

NOW COMES Defendant, REGINALD LAMONT xxxxxxx, and files this motion in limine to exclude any use of defendant's prior criminal record pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Mr. xxxxxxx anticipates that the Government will attempt to introduce evidence of his prior convictions under Rule 609, and objects to the admission of these convictions should he choose to testify. Under Rule 609(a)(1), the probative value of admitting this evidence would not outweigh its prejudicial effect. Further, under Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2), Mr. xxxxxxx's prior convictions do not involve dishonesty or false statement.

The probative value of Mr. xxxxxxx's prior convictions is substantially outweighed by their prejudicial impact. ⁽¹⁾

Mr. xxxxxxx's criminal record indicates traffic arrests and a misdemeanor charge along with one felony conviction for burglary. The limited amount of arrests for felonies would indicate that Mr. xxxxxxx has no criminal pattern, that he is not a "career criminal" who plans illegal endeavors. In addition, misdemeanor charges should not fall under the dishonesty or false statement criteria.

For the very reason that Mr. xxxxxxx's convictions lack probity, they would prove to be highly prejudicial. Because the crime of felony burglary shares a number of similar characteristics with the charged crime, the court should exclude any reference to Mr. xxxxxxx's prior record. Otherwise, there exists a substantial possibility the jury would draw an impermissible inference if allowed to hear evidence concerning these prior convictions.

Mr. xxxxxxx's prior convictions are inadmissible under Rule 609(a)(2) as well. See United States v. Farmer, 923 F.2d 1557, 1567 (11th Cir. 1991) ("It is established in this Circuit that crimes such as theft, robbery, or shoplifting do not involve dishonesty or false statement within the meaning of Rule 609(a)(2)").

If the court does permit the government to introduce these convictions, it would be improper for the government to inquire into the specifics of the offense. United States v. Robinson, 8 F.3d 398, 409 (7th Cir. 1993). Instead, the government should be permitted only to make a limited inquiry concerning the date, the nature of the offense and the fact of conviction. Id.; see also United States v. Pandozzi, 878 F.2d 1526 (1st Cir. 1989).

WHEREFORE, Applicant respectfully requests this Court to exclude any references to the defendant's prior criminal record pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 609.

Dated: This ____ day of January, 1996.