Narrowing the doorway: what constitutes a crimen falsi conviction under revised Military Rule of Evidence 609?

10 When weighing the admissibility of convictions, federal and military courts embraced this ambiguity by regularly looking beyond the elements of offenses to consider whether the circumstances of a crime-not just the crime itself-involved dishonesty or false statement.11 However, by tying an elemental analysis to crimen falsi determinations under the revised rule, Congress has apparently tried to narrow the doorway of automatic admissibility.12 In light of the revised MRE 609, this article suggests a framework for determining what convictions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) fall under crimina falsi for purposes of MRE 609(a)(2), meaning they are automatically admissible for impeachment without requiring an MRE 403 balancing.13 After laying out an analytical framework, this article then suggests a step-by-step guide practitioners can use to consider potential crimen falsi convictions. Cross-examination of a witness is normally the preferred method for inquiring about a previous conviction.56 This cross-examination, however, should be limited to ascertaining the number, date, and nature of each previous conviction.57 Greater latitude in cross-examination may be granted if the witness tries to minimize his guilt regarding the prior conviction.58 A conviction may also be proved by extrinsic evidence, such as a record of the conviction.59 Finally, as a last resort, a prior conviction may be introduced by the testimony of a witness who was present for the announcement of the judgment.60 If a conviction does not constitute crimen falsi under MRE 609(a)(2), the practitioner should next consider its admissibility under MRE 609(a)(1), subject to the balancing requirements of that rule.61 And even if no conviction is admissible, specific instances of conduct may be admissible under MRE 608(b).62 IV.