Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was charged with three bank robberies. The court convened en banc to determine whether bank robbery necessarily involves “dishonesty” as that term is used in the Federal Rules of Evidence 609(a)(2). The court concluded for bank robbery is not per se a crime of “dishonesty.”
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The crime of bank robbery does not fit within the definition of “dishonesty” because it is a crime of violent, not a deceitful, taking.
Issue. Is bank robbery per se a crime of “dishonesty” under Rule 609, regardless of the means by which it is perpetrated?
Held. Bank robbery is not per se a crime of “dishonesty” under Federal Rules of Evidence 609(a)(2). Reversed and remanded.
Discussion. Rule 609(a)(2) applies only to those crimes that factually or by definition entail some element of misrepresentation or deceit, and not to “those crimes which, bad though they are, do not carry with them a tinge of falsifica.