Evidence: Judgment of Previous Conviction
FRE 803:
The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:
(22) Judgment of previous conviction. Evidence of a final judgment, entered after a trial or upon a plea of guilty (but not upon a plea of nolo contendere), adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment, but not including, when offered by the Government in a criminal prosecution for purposes other than impeachment, judgments against persons other than the accused. The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.
If you're convicted of voluntary manslaughter, in the subsequent civil proceeding for wrongful death the plaintiff may introduce into evidence your conviction. It is hearsay, because you are using an out of court statement ("Guilty!") and offering it as evidence that the defendant did in fact do the thing the jury said he did. But, like with the other hearsay exceptions, there's a reduced risk of deceit in the declarant's words.
Note that it needs to be a criminal conviction, a civil judgment will not suffice. Why? Because of the reduced standard of proof. Criminal cases need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so they're really strong evidence that you did it. A civil judgment isn't so good.
Also, you cannot introduce evidence of an acquittal. The standard of proof for getting an acquittal is really low, so it's not good evidence at all. However, if the case is dropped because the DA says there is conclusive proof that you are innocent (not just a lack of sufficient evidence to proceed), then find the form he wrote that on, and get it in under the government records rule.
This rule does not allow in evidence used to prove character traits, habit, or any of that sort. You're trying to prove that he committed the specific act at issue in the criminal trial.
The hard part with this rule is the exception to it. In a criminal trial, you cannot introduce a judgment against someone other than the defendant. But wait, you there's an exception to that exception. You can use it for purposes of impeachment.
When might you want to use evidence of someone else's conviction? Defendant is on trial for receipt of stolen property, and you've already convicted someone else of stealing the property. Proving that the property was stolen is a piece of arguing receipt of stolen property, so it'd be good evidence to have.
Why can't you introduce it? The rule is there probably because the Defendant didn't get the chance to defend the prior case, someone else was on trial.
So then why could you use it in a civil case? Because civil cases aren't considered as serious. We tend to be tougher on evidence in criminal cases.
One last thing: All this only applies to felonies. You can't introduce evidence of a misdemeanor conviction. Why not? Probably because people don't defend those cases as vigorously, so the verdict is slightly more suspect. We expect you to defend a murder charge with all your resources.
