Shannon v. Koehler - Northern District of Iowa

likely than most to be deterred from lying under oath.” Id. at 826 (citing Campbell v.
Greer, 831 F.2d 700, 707 (7th Cir.1987)); accord United States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606,
617 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Rule 609(a)(1) presumes that all felonies are at least somewhat
probative of a witness’s propensity to testify truthfully.”). The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals has indicated that district courts should attribute more probative value to a
conviction when a case largely turns on a witness’s credibility. Cummings, 995 F.2d at
825-26 (reversing district court’s decision in an excessive force case to exclude the
plaintiff’s prior felony convictions where the plaintiff’s case turned on his own testimony
and where the convictions would have contradicted the plaintiff’s testimony). As far as
the specific nature of a felony conviction, because “felony” includes a wide array of
offenses, “most jurors . . . need to know the specific crime in order to evaluate its effect
on credibility.” Id. at 826. But see Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 699-700 (8th Cir.
2001) (distinguishing Cummings, where the plaintiff’s convictions contradicted his
testimony, and affirming the district court’s exclusion in an excessive force case of the
names of the plaintiff’s prior convictions of rape and sodomy as unfairly prejudicial under
Rules 609(a) and 403).
Here, the probative value of the nature of Shannon’s felony OWI conviction is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to him. Shannon’s felony
conviction certainly has probative value for his credibility under Rule 609(a), especially
because his testimony is so important to proving his case, just as in Cummings. See
Cummings, 995 F.2d at 826. Indeed, I denied summary judgment for the defendants
because of the many genuine issues of material fact where Shannon’s version of events
differs from that of the defendants. Shannon v. Koehler, 673 F. Supp. 2d 758, 784 (N.D.
Iowa 2009). However, although Shannon’s case largely turns on his own testimony, the
probative value of his conviction for his credibility is less substantial here than in
43