Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 6, 2010
No. 10-30941 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
MOSE JEFFERSON; RENEE GILL PRATT,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:
In this interlocutory appeal brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731,1 the
government appeals the district court’s pretrial order excluding evidence of the
1
In relevant part, § 3731 states:
An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or
order of a district court suppressing or excluding evidence or requiring the
return of seized property in a criminal proceeding, not made after the defendant
has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or
information, if the United States attorney certifies to the district court that the
appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial
proof of a fact material in the proceeding.
Id.
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
prior convictions of Defendant Mose Jefferson for purposes of impeachment. We
VACATE the exclusion order and REMAND this matter for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Defendants Mose Jefferson and Renee Gill Pratt are charged, inter alia,
with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act. On August 21, 2009, Jefferson was convicted of two counts of bribery
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2) and two counts of obstruction of justice in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). The government moved to introduce evidence
of Jefferson’s prior convictions in its case-in-chief as intrinsically related to the
conduct at issue in the pending trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
404(b).2 The district court denied the government’s motion by written order on
August 27, 2010, but stated that “the Government is allowed to use defendant
Mose Jefferson’s prior conviction for purposes of cross-examination if the
defendant testifies.”(emphasis in original).3 Jefferson later made a motion to
change venue and Defendants made a joint motion to quash jury venire. In those
motions, Defendants raised the issue of voir dire regarding jurors’ knowledge of
Jefferson’s convictions. United States District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle held a
2
Rule 404(b) provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may,
however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity,
intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or
accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a
criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial
if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature
of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.
FED . R. EVID . 404(b).
3
The district court’s decision to exclude the introduction of Jefferson’s convictions
under Rule 404(b) is not at issue.
2
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
hearing on the motions and ordered additional briefing. After receiving the
additional briefs, Judge Lemelle denied both motions, but “FURTHER
ORDERED that evidence of Defendant Mose Jefferson’s prior conviction is
inadmissible.” (emphasis in original). The government then moved for
reconsideration, or in the alternative, to continue the trial for forty days so that
the government could seek authorization to appeal the district court’s decision.
Defendants filed an opposition. On September 29, 2010, the district court denied
the government’s motion to reconsider and its alternative motion to continue the
trial.
That same day, the government filed a notice of appeal to this court
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, accompanied by the required certification of
United States Attorney Jim Letten to the district court that “the instant appeal
is not taken for purposes of delay and that the evidence [excluded by Judge
Lemelle’s order] is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceedings.” 4 Later
in the same day, the district court held a status conference during which the
government moved for stay of the criminal trial proceedings. Judge Lemelle
denied the motion for stay, stating “it was my interpretation under the cited
statute [§ 3731] then that evidence of a prior conviction in this context is not an
essential element of the crime charged and, therefore, in my interpretation, not
substantial proof of a fact material in the proceedings.” Judge Lemelle gave the
government until noon the following day, September 30, to comply with its other
pre-trial orders, to submit “something on point on [the issue of whether the
4
As will be explained below, the filing of the § 3731 appeal and the United States
Attorney’s accompanying certification instantly divested the district court of its jurisdiction
over this case. Therefore, although we discuss the remainder of the actions taken by the
district court to give context to our discussion, we note that the district court was without
jurisdiction to take any further action on this case as of the time and date that the government
filed its notice of appeal and certification.
3
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
district court was divested of jurisdiction upon the filing of the § 3731 appeal]
before we start trial,” or face dismissal of the Third Superseding Indictment.
On September 30, the government filed an emergency motion seeking stay
of the criminal trial proceedings5 in this court, which Defendants opposed. That
same day, this court granted the emergency motion for stay until October 11,
2010. This court additionally ordered simultaneous expedited briefing on the
merits of the appeal and ordered the district court to instruct the jury venire to
be available for trial on October 11, 2010. Immediately before this court granted
the government’s emergency motion, and although without jurisdiction to do so,
the district court reconsidered its earlier order. Judge Lemelle reiterated his
belief that Ҥ 3731 does not apply to an evidentiary ruling concerning a matter
that is not an element of the charged offense” and stated that “the Government’s
appeal in this case does not require this Court to relinquish jurisdiction.” He
then concluded that “because as far as this Court can determine, the underlying
evidentiary ruling is one of first impression, the Court will stay the case to allow
the Government to seek relief from the Fifth Circuit.” In granting the
government’s emergency motion to stay, this court explained it would render a
decision in an expedited manner. This matter is ripe for adjudication.
DISCUSSION
I. 18 U.S.C. § 3731
Issues of subject matter jurisdiction are questions of law and are reviewed
de novo. See Am. Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321, 327 (5th
Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). Before turning to the merits of the appeal, this
court will address Defendants’ and the district court’s misconception regarding
our jurisdiction over appeals taken pursuant to § 3731. Section 3731 “permits
the United States to appeal orders ‘suppressing or excluding’ evidence in
5
The trial was scheduled to start on October 4, 2010.
4
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
criminal cases so long as the relevant United States Attorney ‘certifies to the
district court that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the
evidence is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.’” United States
v. Smith, 135 F.3d 963, 967 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3731). “The
provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.”
18 U.S.C. § 3731. We have interpreted § 3731 as providing “the government with
as broad a right to appeal as the Constitution will permit.” Smith, 135 F.3d at
967.
The Supreme Court addressed the “requisites of § 3731” appeals in United
States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 487 n.6 (1979). Specifically, the Court found
that § 3731 requires that “[t]here was an order of a District Court excluding
evidence; a United States Attorney filed the proper certification; and the appeal
was taken within 30 days.” Id. The Court also noted that “the purpose of the
section was to remove all statutory barriers to Government appeals and to allow
appeals whenever the Constitution would permit.” Id. (quotations omitted).
We have little difficulty concluding that § 3731 affords the government a
basis for an appeal in this case: 1) the district court entered an order excluding
evidence; 2) United States Attorney Jim Letten filed the proper certification; and
3) the appeal was taken within 30 days. The “requisites of § 3731 [are] met.”
Helstoski, 442 U.S. at 487 n.6. The district court’s conclusion that § 3731 “does
not apply to an evidentiary ruling concerning a matter that is not an element of
the charged offense” is erroneous. First, the statute contains no such limitation
and instructs courts to “liberally construe [the statute] to effectuate its purpose.”
Id. Second, the plain text of § 3731 limits it to “evidence [that] is substantial
proof of a fact material in the proceeding,” id., not evidentiary rulings concerning
matters that involve elements of the charged offense as stated by the district
court. Evidence may be “substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding”
without being an element of the charged offense. Moreover, and more
5
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
importantly, the evaluation as to whether the evidence excluded by the district
court “is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding” is to be made by
the United States Attorney, not the district court.6
Indeed, once the government timely files an appeal under § 3731 and the
United States Attorney makes the required certification, we cannot evaluate the
materiality of the excluded evidence to determine whether or not to hear the
appeal. Defendants rely on Smith for the proposition that this court must look
beyond the United States Attorney’s certification and make an independent
inquiry as to whether the evidence sought was “substantial proof of a fact
material to the proceeding.” Although Smith did state that the evidence excluded
in that case, a videotape containing allegedly false allegations, was substantial
proof of a fact material to that case, Smith does not stand for the proposition
that this court must make a materiality determination prior to hearing a § 3731
appeal.7 Smith is also distinguishable from this case because it required the
court to determine whether the equities of the case excused the government’s
failure to comply with § 3731’s non-jurisdictional timing requirements. Smith,
135 F.3d at 967–68. In Smith, the court had the discretion to exercise appellate
jurisdiction under § 3731 because the government’s appeal was untimely. Id. at
967 (“[W]e may still entertain § 3731 appeals certified in an untimely manner.”)
(emphasis added). Where, as here, the appeal is timely filed, “[a]n appeal by the
United States shall lie to a court of appeals . . .” and we need not consider the
6
Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (In civil cases, we may entertain interlocutory appeals from
a non-final district court order if the district court certifies that it is “of the opinion that such
order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.”).
7
Smith also recognized that, “[a]s the statute instructs . . . the government considered
whether its appeal would delay justice and whether it sought substantial proof of a material
fact.” Smith, 135 F.3d at 968 (emphasis added).
6
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
equities of this case because we do not have the discretion to decline
jurisdiction.8 18 U.S.C. § 3731 (emphasis added).
Our sister circuits that have considered this issue are in accord that the
United States Attorney’s certification is sufficient to establish appellate
jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc) (“[W]e now hold that a certification by a United States Attorney
(personally, not by an Assistant United States Attorney) that the appeal is not
taken for the purpose of delay and that the evidence is substantial proof of a fact
material in the proceeding is sufficient for purposes of establishing our
jurisdiction under § 3731.”); United States v. Centracchio, 236 F.3d 812, 813 (7th
Cir. 2001) (“We therefore treat as conclusive of our jurisdiction over a [§ 3731]
Paragraph 2 appeal the submission of the [United States Attorney’s] certification
required by the statute.”); In re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224, 1226
(3d Cir. 1979) (“Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the United States Attorney has
certified that this appeal ‘is not taken for the purpose of delay and that the
evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.’ The district
court having received this certification, we are not required by section 3731 to
evaluate independently the substantiality or the materiality of the contested
material.”); United States v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 2000) (“The
language of § 3731 implies that mere certification is required to demonstrate
materiality.”); United States v. Juvenile Male No. 1, 86 F.3d 1314, 1326 (4th Cir.
1996) (Wilkinson, J., concurring) (“[C]ertification by the U.S. Attorney under 18
8
Defendants additionally rely on United States v. Arce-Jasso for the same proposition.
389 F.3d 124 (5th Cir. 2004). In Arce-Jasso, the court rejected the government’s contention
that “a post-verdict suppression order fails to become material to the proceedings until the
court decides to grant acquittal” such that § 3731’s 30-day time limit was tolled. Id. at 129.
Although the court discussed the materiality of the suppressed evidence to determine when
the 30-day period began to run, it did not evaluate materiality in order to determine its
jurisdiction. Indeed, the court dismissed the appeal on the basis of untimeliness, not
materiality. Id. at 130 (“The Government did not appeal in time; therefore, we lack jurisdiction
to review the suppression decision.”).
7
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
U.S.C. § 3731 that an appeal from an adverse suppression ruling is not taken for
purposes of delay and involves evidence material to the proceedings” is
an“executive determination [that has been] deemed outside the scope of judicial
review”).
In United States v. DeQuasie, the Fourth Circuit concisely explained the
policy underlying § 3731’s certification requirement:
The certification requirement of § 3731 operates to ensure that
before the United States interrupts a criminal proceeding (and
thereby delays a defendant from obtaining resolution of the charges
against him) by taking an interlocutory appeal, it has evaluated
whether the appeal is warranted . . . the certificate itself operates
as proof of the evaluation.
373 F.3d 509, 515 (4th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571,
577 (6th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted) (“The certification is intended to ensure
a ‘conscientious pre-appeal analysis by the responsible prosecuting official.’”);
United States v. Herman, 544 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1977) (“The requirement
is not a mere formality; its purpose is to protect the accused from undue delay.”).
We additionally note that, although not required by the statute, the United
States Attorney’s Manual provides an additional level of review—“[a]ll appeals
to the lower appellate courts handled by . . . United States Attorneys . . . must
be authorized by the Solicitor General. This includes interlocutory appeals . . . .”
U.S. A TTY M ANUAL 2–2.121.
This is not a close case. The statute is clear—the United States Attorney’s
certification that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the
evidence excluded by the district court’s order is a substantial proof of a fact
material in the proceeding is the final word on materiality for the purposes of
determining whether we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Neither the
district court nor this court can hold otherwise. As the government recognizes,
the United States Attorney remains subject to this court’s general supervisory
8
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
powers for discipline for frivolous or abusive interlocutory appeals. But that in
an appropriate case we may potentially sanction the government for abusing its
authority under § 3731 does not mean that we do not have jurisdiction to hear
the appeal.9 Accordingly, we hold that we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal
under § 3731, and that as of the time the government filed its notice of appeal
and the United States Attorney filed the required certification under the statute,
the district court was instantly divested of its jurisdiction to take any further
action in the case pending resolution of the appeal and remand from this court.
All orders entered by the district court following the filing of the notice of appeal
9
There is no abuse of authority in this case. We need devote only a footnote to
dismissing Defendants’ contention that Mose Jefferson’s prior convictions are not substantial
proof of a fact material in the proceedings. If he testifies, Jefferson’s prior convictions are
“substantial proof of a fact material in the proceedings.” We again highlight the district court’s
conflation of “substantial proof of a fact material in the proceedings” with “an evidentiary
ruling concerning a matter that is not an element of the charged offense.” A practitioner’s
treatise defining materiality in the context of evidence law is instructive: “Materiality is the
relationship between the proposition on which the evidence is offered and the issues in the
case.” ANTHONY J. BOCCHINO & DAVID A. SONENSHEIN , A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO FEDERAL
EVIDENCE 46 (Nat’l Institute of Trial Advocacy 2006). In this case, if he testifies, the
proposition for which evidence of Jefferson’s convictions will be offered is Jefferson’s
credibility. If he testifies, Jefferson will have made his credibility an issue in the case—his
credibility clearly will be “a fact material in the proceedings” and his convictions will clearly
be “substantial proof” of that fact.
The authorities cited by Defendants, neither of which involve § 3731 appeals, are
inapposite. In United States v. Lafayette, the D.C. Circuit held that “[i]mpeachment of a
witness who testified as to a peripheral fact as a part of a substantial and massive government
case” was not material enough to warrant a new trial. 983 F.2d 1102, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Jefferson is a defendant, not merely a witness, and presumably the questions directed at him
on cross-examination will expand beyond peripheral facts. Contrary to Defendants’ assertions,
Lafayette does not stand for the proposition that impeachment evidence is always peripheral
such that it cannot be considered substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding. Nor
is the unpublished report and recommendation from a Magistrate Judge in Skinner v. Duncan,
No. 01 Civ. 6656, 2003 WL 21386032 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2003) helpful to Defendants.
“Suppressed impeachment evidence is material . . . where the likely impact on the witness’s
credibility would have undermined a critical element of the prosecution’s case.” Id. at *23
(discussing suppressed evidence to impeach government’s witness and concluding that where
the witness did not testify, the suppressed impeachment evidence was not material). Here, of
course, the evidence of Jefferson’s convictions will only be admitted if he chooses to testify.
9
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
and United States Attorney Letten’s certification pursuant to § 3731 are hereby
VACATED AS ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
II. Whether the District Court Erred by Excluding Evidence of
Jefferson’s Convictions for Impeachment Purposes
Having determined that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we turn
to its merits. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Parks, 68 F.3d 860, 867 (5th Cir. 1995).
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 governs the admissibility of evidence of
convictions for impeachment purposes. Relevant here, the rule provides that
“[f]or the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a
witness . . . evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be
admitted regardless of the punishment, if it readily can be determined that
establishing the elements of the crime required proof or admission of an act of
dishonesty or false statement by the witness.” F ED R. E VID. 609(a)(2). “Crimes
qualifying for admission under Rule 609(a)(2) are not subject to Rule 403
balancing and must be admitted.” United States v. Harper, 527 F.3d 396, 408
(5th Cir. 2008). Rule 609(a)(2) contains “mandatory language [and] requires that
a trial court admit evidence of such crimes to allow a party to impeach an
adversary witness’s credibility.” Coursey v. Broadhurst, 888 F.2d 338, 341–42
(5th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added).10
Jefferson’s prior convictions for bribery are crimes involving dishonesty.
“[B]ribery is a crimen falsi in that it involves dishonesty . . . . Hence, it is
automatically admissible [under] F ED. R. E VID . 609(a)(2).” United States v.
Williams, 642 F.2d 136, 140 (5th Cir. 1981).
10
We note with express disapproval that none of the cases cited by Defendants in
support of their proposition that Jefferson’s convictions should not be admitted for
impeachment purposes involved a court applying Rule 609(a)(2). Defendants’ uncontroversial
assertion that convictions admitted under Rule 609(a)(1) are subject to balancing by the
district court under Rule 403 is irrelevant.
10
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
Jefferson’s prior convictions for obstruction of justice in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) are admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) “if it readily can be
determined that establishing the elements of the crime required proof or
admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement by the witness.” F ED R.
E VID. 609(a)(2). Section 1512 provides:
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens or corruptly
persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading
conduct toward another person, with intent to—
....
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement
officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the
commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of
conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending
judicial proceedings.
18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). “Ordinarily, the statutory elements of the crime will
indicate whether it is one of dishonesty or false statement.” F ED. R. E VID. 609,
advisory committee’s note to 2006 amendments. A defendant can be convicted
of § 1512(b)(3) for intimidating or threatening another person—actions which
do not involve acts of dishonesty or false statement. The statutory elements of
§ 1512(b)(3) therefore do not indicate whether Jefferson’s convictions thereunder
are crimes of dishonesty or false statement warranting automatic admission
under Rule 609(a)(2). However, “[w]here the deceitful nature of the crime is not
apparent from the statute and the face of the judgment . . . a proponent may
offer information such as an indictment . . . or jury instructions to show that the
factfinder had to find . . . an act of dishonesty or false statement in order for the
witness to have been convicted.” Id.
We turn to the indictment in the earlier case and conclude that Jefferson’s
convictions for obstruction of justice involve dishonesty or false statement. The
11
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
obstruction of justice charges contained therein, counts 6 and 7, read, in relevant
part, as follows:
Count 6: On or about May 21, 2007, in the Eastern District of
Louisiana, defendant MOSE JEFFERSON did knowingly and
corruptly attempt to persuade Ellenese Brooks-Simms to lie to
federal law enforcement authorities . . . .
Count 7: On or about May 25, 2007, in the Eastern District of
Louisiana, defendant MOSE JEFFERSON did knowingly and
corruptly attempt to persuade Ellenese Brooks-Simms to lie to
federal law enforcement authorities . . . .
Indictment at 9, United States v. Mose Jefferson, No. 08-CR-085 (E.D. La. Apr.
2, 2009). Because counts 6 and 7 each charge that Jefferson knowingly and
corruptly attempted to persuade another to lie to the authorities, we hold that
the indictment shows that “the factfinder had to find . . . an act of dishonesty or
false statement in order for [Jefferson] to have been convicted.” F ED. R. E VID.
609, advisory committee’s note to 2006 amendments. Accordingly, we hold that
evidence of Jefferson’s obstruction of justice convictions must be admitted for
impeachment purposes under Rule 609(a)(2) should he choose to testify.
The record reflects that the district court was concerned with the effect
that Jefferson’s convictions might have on the jury pool during voir dire. First,
we note that this matter is not before this court and that we express no opinion
on the district court’s management of the voir dire process, which has yet to
begin.11 But the district court’s decision to avoid applying Rule 609(a)(2) due to
its view that the “overriding principal [sic] is constitutional law in the criminal
context [and] is to avoid manifest injustice period” was an abuse of discretion.
“[R]eliance on the ‘interest of justice,’ without more, does not afford the district
11
Relatedly, although we are highly dubious of Defendants’ argument that the
application of Rule 609(a)(2) contravenes the constitutional safeguard of the right to a fair
trial, this argument is not ripe. Evidence of Jefferson’s convictions has not yet been introduced
and indeed may ultimately never be introduced if Jefferson chooses not to testify.
12
Case: 10-30941 Document: 00511254734 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/06/2010
No. 10-30941
court any basis to ignore the Federal Rules of Evidence . . . .” United States v.
Atkins, 294 F. App’x 892, 894 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
“The admission of prior convictions involving dishonesty and false
statement is not within the discretion of the Court.” F ED. R. E VID. 609, advisory
committee’s note to subsection (a). “Such convictions are peculiarly probative of
credibility and, under this rule, are always to be admitted. Thus, judicial
discretion granted with respect to the admissibility of other prior convictions is
not applicable to those involving dishonesty or false statement.” Id. Accordingly,
we hold that the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of
Jefferson’s convictions for impeachment purposes.
CONCLUSION
All orders entered by the district court following the filing of the notice of
appeal and United States Attorney Letten’s certification pursuant to § 3731 are
VACATED AS ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION. The district court’s order
excluding evidence of Jefferson’s convictions for purposes of impeachment is
VACATED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
13