Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood scheduled questioning to assess whether an old felony conviction may be admitted against an expert witness.
Mary Tardif, the City of New York, and Dr. Ranga C. Krishna, whose proposed expert testimony may be affected by the court’s later decision about the admissibility of his past felony conviction.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, the City said it intended to introduce evidence of a past felony conviction of Dr. Ranga C. Krishna, an expert whom Mary Tardif plans to call as a witness. Tardif objected to using the conviction.
Because the conviction was more than ten years old, the court said a rule governing older convictions applied. That rule requires the court to find, based on specific facts, that the evidence’s usefulness substantially outweighs its potential unfair harm before admitting it.
Judge Kimba M. Wood did not decide whether the conviction will be admitted. Instead, the court will question Dr. Krishna about the conviction before deciding the issue, and the lawyers may question him as well.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- June 6, 2022
Issue
The City of New York indicated that it intended to introduce evidence of a past felony conviction of Dr. Ranga C. Krishna, an expert whom Mary Tardif plans to call to testify. Tardif objected to the evidence.
Legal standard
The court stated that because the conviction occurred more than ten years ago, its admissibility is governed by Rule 609(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the standard described by the court, a judge may admit such a conviction only after making an on-the-record determination, supported by specific facts and circumstances, that the evidence’s probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Court’s action
The court will conduct a voir dire examination—questioning to obtain information relevant to the evidentiary decision—of Dr. Krishna concerning the facts and circumstances of his conviction. The court expects to conduct that questioning after the trial proceedings close on the trial day before Tardif is scheduled to call Dr. Krishna. Counsel may conduct their own questioning at that time.
The order does not decide whether the conviction will be admitted. It schedules the questioning needed for that decision.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.