PHILADELPHIA – U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert allowed admission of evidence related to some prior convictions of the plaintiff and one of the defendants in a hostile work environment, retaliation and aiding and abetting case, according to a Feb. 6 memorandum filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Feb. 6 order filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said Pamela Johnson filed a lawsuit against former employer Keystone Quality Transport Co. and three former co-workers, alleging that “she was harassed and assaulted by her supervisor Charles Lane and that Keystone management employees Frantz Magloire and Barbara Crews failed to act promptly and reasonably in response to her complaints and then retaliated against Johnson for making those complaints.”
Pappert said in the memorandum that he was informed on the date that the trial was scheduled to begin that Johnson planned to “seek to admit evidence of Lane’s prior criminal convictions and Keystone wishes to admit evidence of Johnson’s prior conviction, all for purposes of impeachment.”
According to the memorandum, “Johnson seeks to admit evidence of Lane’s nine criminal convictions for theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, burglary, tampering with records and theft by deception.” Meanwhile, “Keystone seeks to admit evidence of Johnson’s 2004 conviction for theft by receiving stolen property.”
Lane’s two convictions for theft by unlawful taking or disposition are “admissible because the probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect,” Pappert wrote in the memorandum. As a result, the judge said this crime carries “significant impeachment value.”
However, Pappert said the timing of those convictions also plays a role in their admissibility. For example, the judge said a conviction that occurred in 1990 “is highly prejudicial,” while one that occurred in 2008, “is more probative and not as prejudicial.”
“Lane’s testimony is essential to this case, much of which consists of Johnson and Lane’s varying description of Lane’s conduct and whether Johnson encouraged or welcomed it,” the memorandum said. “This weighs in favor of admissibility.”
Similarly, Pappert wrote in the memorandum that Keystone’s request for admission of Johnson’s 2004 theft by receiving stolen property conviction “is highly probative of truthfulness, thus weighing in favor of admission.”
Although Johnson’s conviction is 14 years old and the law suggests a cap of 10 years for admission, Pappert cited a 2012 ruling in which the court admitted a 12-year-old conviction “because the plaintiff’s credibility was of 'paramount importance' to the case.’”
“As the plaintiff in this case, Johnson’s credibility is essential,” Pappert wrote. “The probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect and Johnson’s prior conviction is admissible.”
Regardless of how much time has passed, Pappert said under Federal Rule of Evidence 609 “evidence of the conviction is admissible only if: (1) its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect; and (2) the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable written notice of the intent to use it so that the party has a fair opportunity to contest its use.”