dissenting:
This case announces a rule that is incorrect and most unfortunate. It reverses a conviction because of a question I should have thought relevant and proper in any sensible legal system. The court holds that a jury may not be told that both a witness and the defendant for whom he vouches belong to a prison gang bound by oath to lie on each others’ behalf in open court, because, without more, that affiliation is not probative of the witness’ credibility.
The line of questioning barred by the majority in this case is akin to inquiry respecting family ties, prior business relations, or the myriad other past or present associations that may cause a witness, consciously or otherwise, to color his testimony. There is consensus that such matters are admissible, as probative on the issue of bias. See 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Evidence § 607[03] (1982 & Supp.1982); 3A J. Wig-more, Evidence § 949 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1970 & W. Reiser Supp.1982). Even with respect to the sensitive area of religion, the Advisory Committee’s notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence make it clear that evidence of membership, if relevant to bias, is admissible. Fed.R.Evid. 610 advisory committee note. Indeed, if the tables were turned and a key prosecution witness were a member of a gang such as the one here, I should think it would be error to reject defense efforts to show bias through gang membership. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316-17, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110-11, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); see generally Weinstein, Evidence § 607[03].
I respectfully submit it is a mistake to require that routine bias questions meet the constitutional standards for proof of guilt in a criminal proceeding based on associational activity. The majority announces a sweeping prohibition against attempts to establish bias based upon a witness’ membership in any organization or group, relying solely upon a Smith Act case and a criminal syndicalism case. Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed.2d 782 (1961); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969). Even assuming Scales and its progeny have some relevance to the case before us, and I submit they do not, those cases do not prohibit all inferences from the fact of membership. They stand only for the proposition that membership alone is not sufficient for the imposition of a penalty, an issue not present in this case. The inference that a member of a cultist, disciplined prison gang might tend to color his testimony respecting another member from the same prison is a sensible conclusion of the sort used by men and women in their ordinary affairs, and the trier of fact ought to be able to draw it here.
Elementary evidentiary probes similar to those at issue here do not chill or infringe the constitutional right of free association. The first amendment concerns addressed in Scales and alluded to by the majority do not arise in the context of cross-examination of a witness as in this case. The witness who is impeached by membership in a group sworn to perjury is subject to no sanction other than that his testimony may be disbelieved. He may respond to the inquiry by either a confirmation or denial of membership, and his answers can be given appropriate weight by the trier of fact. Counsel for *1018the defendant, moreover, may ask further questions in order to correct any misleading inferences. Any danger that such questioning might mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant may be considered by the trial judge under Fed.R.Evid. 403, which is addressed to precisely such matters.
It was proper for the Government to call Ehle to rebut Mills’ denial of membership in the prison gang. With the exception of prior criminal convictions, extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct ordinarily may not be introduced to attack or support a witness’ credibility. Fed.R.Evid. 608(b); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 441 (9th Cir.1976). Ehle’s testimony in this case, however, goes not to Mills’ general character for truthfulness or lack thereof, but to his particular bias or motive for testifying as he did. The bias or interest of an important witness is not collateral or irrelevant, and it is well-settled that extrinsic evidence is admissible, in the trial court’s discretion, on that issue. Barnard v. United States, 342 F.2d 309, 317 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 948, 86 S.Ct. 403, 15 L.Ed.2d 356 (1965); United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 46 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 905, 100 S.Ct. 1082, 63 L.Ed.2d 321 (1980); 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Evidence § 607[03] (1982 & Supp.1982).
Of course, Ehle’s rebuttal testimony also suggested that Abel himself belonged to the secret prison organization, which was prejudicial to him. Before allowing that testimony, the district court gave the matter particularly careful consideration, and dutifully performed on the record the required balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect. We accord such determinations of admissibility considerable deference on appeal, and will reverse them only for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Palmer, 691 F.2d 921, 923 (9th Cir.1982). There is nothing in the record of this case to suggest that the district court abused its discretion or that its determination should be overturned. To the contrary, the district court’s consideration of the matter was thorough, deliberate, and well-reasoned. The Government’s inquiry into Mills’ connection to the secret prison organization and Ehle’s rebuttal testimony were entirely permissible.
I would affirm the conviction.