dissenting:
The district court, applying Fed.R.Evid. 609(a), determined that the probative value for impeachment purposes of the 1968 conviction outweighed its prejudicial effect on Portillo. The court offered no rationale for this determination. Unlike the majority, I would ask the district court to state the facts and the reasons underlying its ruling. Among other things, we ought to be told why this evidence and evidence of appellant’s 1963 conviction were needed by the government to prosecute successfully an apparently strong case. See United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d 268, 275 (5th Cir. 1979). This information is important because the stronger the government’s case, the less need there is for impeachment evidence of a prior conviction. Such evidence is invariably prejudicial, and the likelihood of its use is usually enough to discourage a defendant from taking the witness stand.
I agree with the majority that the district court’s statement pertaining to the 1963 conviction “falls short of meeting the more exacting requirements of rule 609(b).” That rule excludes evidence of remote convictions unless certain stringent requirements are met. Among these is the requirement that “the court determines, in the interest of justice, that the probative value of the conviction-supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.” Given these requirements and bearing in mind that the government has the burden of establishing admissibility of prior convictions, United States v. Cook, 608 F.2d 1175, 1185 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1979), one would think that evidence of remote convictions would rarely come in under Rule 609(b). United States v. Cathey, 591 F.2d at 276 (Fed.R.Evid. 609(b) should be interpreted to preclude admissibility of remote convictions absent “exceptional circumstances”). In any event, I think that we should remand the case and ask the district court to comply with Rule 609(b). After such compliance, we ought to be in a position to review properly the court’s Rule 609(b) ruling. Until then J see no need to establish factors necessary to show prejudice to a defendant’s substantial *466right. As a practical matter, the factors espoused by the majority gut Rule 609(b) because only on rare occasions will a defendant sustain the heavy burden the majority would impose on him. And I submit that it is anomalous to saddle a defendant with such a burden merely because the district court in admitting evidence of a prior conviction failed to address Rule 609(b)’s stringent requirements.
Finally, the idea that a trier of fact will think a defendant guilty of the offense charged solely because of his earlier transgressions has always been troublesome. The majority opinion heightens that concern which, I thought, Rule 609 was intended to allay.
I would remand for compliance with Fed. R.Evid. 609.