“For purposes of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness ... ”
How later courts described this case
- “For purposes of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from the witness ... ”
- “In reviewing the district court’s decision to allow the impeaching evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 609(a)(1), we determine whether the district court abused its discretion.”
- applying the Williams factors in a 609(a) case
- “[T]o correctly interpret statutory language, we must look at the specific statutory language as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the portion of the majority opinion that discusses the failure to file an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851 (1988) and in the remainder of the opinion. I write separately only to note that the majority properly interprets United States v. Williams, 899 F.2d 1526 (6th Cir.1990) as a case of statutory sentencing rather than guideline sentencing. Accordingly, Williams does not stand for the proposition that an information is required in cases of guideline sentencing and, thus, the following cases are incorrect in construing Williams as contrary to their holdings: United States v. Novey, 922 F.2d 624, 627 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2861 , 115 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1991); United States v. Marshall, 910 F.2d 1241, 1245 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 976 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1991); Hansen v. United States Parole Comm’n, 904 F.2d 306, 309 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 765 , 112 L.Ed.2d 784 (1991).