Here’s a question I’m sure comes up every day in legal circles…not! But I got to wondering last night on my drive home.
Say Patty Hearst robs a bank. She’s arrested and brought to trial and the prosecutor wants to enter into evidence her previous conviction for robbing the Hibernia Bank back in the 70s. The thing is, Patty’s received a presidential pardon for that conviction. Assuming that the prior conviction is otherwise admissible (for example, as evidence of a pattern), does the pardon prevent the prosecutor from using the conviction against her? I’m interested both in terms of pardons and trials on the federal and state levels.
IANAL. However, from the fact that felons who receive pardons are (in states that ban felons from voting) now re-eligible to vote, I would guess that the pardon, in effect, wipes out the conviction in toto.
However, that’s just a guess. Now I’ll just shut up and wait for a real lawyer to come by.
A pardon is NOT an exoneration. A pardon, in practical terms, means that the pardoning body thinks that the convict/felon should no longer be punished for the crime he or she committed. It is not a statement that the crime was never committed by that person. Even in the case of a person who is pardoned before prosecution, there is no judicial or executive statement that such crime was not committed by that person.
In addition, in order to be admissible, the prior bad acts (whether convicted of a crime or not) must go to establish a real pattern (usually one bad act does not a pattern make), or can only be admitted to show that the defendant (in his or her role as a witness–if he or she chooses to testify) is not trustworthy. So, in terms of the rules of evidence, one prior bank robbery probably would not be admissible (regardless of whether the assailant was pardoned) unless the defendant chooses to testify on his or her own behalf.
It also depends on how the evidence is being used. If it can be used to establish motive, identity, opportunity, or any other purpose showing evidence of chararter other than for suggesting that that person acted in conformity with their character on that occasion, it’s admissible; in other words, you can’t show that the person had a prediliction for committing crimes, but you can use a past crime or wrong for showing that a person committed this particular crime in this particular manner. If I wore a Spider-Man mask for my last ten bank robberies, it can be used to show that I committed this bank robbery if the robber wore a similar mask.
Now why does this phrase strike me slightly sinister?
For the record, I knew that one prior bad act is generally not sufficient evidence of a pattern. Thanks for the information, I know I’ll rest easier tonight knowing that as usual the answer is at least in part “it depends on jurisdiction.”