Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Third Circuit Blog
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Third Circuit BlogImpeachment by contradiction with prior crimes evidence subject to FRE 402, 403 & 607, not 404(b) and 609.
By Candace Hom, Melinda Ghilardi, Nancy Rimmer, Sarah Gannett, Renee Pietropaolo and Tieffa Harper
ADVERTISEMENTS
On January 20, 2009, the Third Circuit decided United States v. Gilmore, Case No. 07-3139. It held that a party may permissibly introduce prior crimes evidence, subject to Rules 402, 403 and 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and with a proper limiting instruction, to impeach by contradiction a witness?s testimony regarding a specific fact. See Gilmore, slip op. at 10-11. The Court further held that such impeaching evidence does not fall within the ambit of Rules 404(b) and 609. See id., slip op. at 9, 12. Gilmore involved a prosecution for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500g or more of cocaine. See Gilmore, slip op. at 3. Mr. Gilmore testified in his own defense, and during direct examination, stated ?No, I didn?t sell no drugs...continue to full postFull post as published by Third Circuit Blog on January 26, 2009 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Oil and Gas
industry workers allegedly subject to serious accident injury from hazardous conditions.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

From the Mouths of Babes - Evidence Rule 613 vs. 801(d)(1)(A)
Speaker Pelosi Declares That There is No Evidence of Any Crime by President Bush
Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of Non-Egregious Bush Crimes









