Filed: Dec. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant Adam Burke's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence [Docket No. 188]. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b): Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probat
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant Adam Burke's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence [Docket No. 188]. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b): Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probati..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Adam Burke's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence [Docket No. 188].
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b):
Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of:
(1) the witness; or
(2) another witness whose character the witness being crossexamined has testified about.
Here, evidence regarding Burke's Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Consent Order for, among other things, falsely reporting patient income, is probative of Burke's character for truthfulness. The Court further finds that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Thus, if Burke chooses to testify, the Government, during cross examination, may question him regarding the events at issue in the Consent Order for the purpose of challenging his character for truthfulness under Rule 608(b); however, the Government may not impeach him with extrinsic evidence as to this collateral matter and is required to accept his answer to such questions. See, e.g., United States v. Umawa Oke Imo, 739 F.3d 226, 239 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Crinel, No. CR 15-61, 2017 WL 490635, at *7 (E.D. La. Feb. 7, 2017).
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendant Adam Burke's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence [Docket No. 188] is DENIED.
