SAN FRANCISCO, CA — After hearing arguments Thursday morning from Deputy Public Defender Kleigh Hathaway, Judge Michael McNaughton ruled that a witness’s prior forgery conviction could not be used to impeach her credibility in a murder trial.
The witness had previously testified against the accused in two earlier trials of the same case in 2005 and 2006.
Hathaway challenged the witness’s credibility, arguing her prior convictions were “crimes of moral turpitude,” referencing a 2003 theft and a 2005 incident in which the witness gave police a false name and address after being pulled over while driving on a suspended license. The latter resulted in a conviction. Deputy District Attorney Justine Cephus said she “would not argue against the defense [as to] the underlying conduct of the witness.”
Hathaway then brought up the witness’s 2009 forgery conviction, saying it further undermined her credibility. Cephus countered that the conviction was irrelevant, noting that it occurred after both the alleged murder and the witness’s prior testimony. She argued that a “conviction after [the] murder and testimony does not bear on witness credibility at the time or [on] testimony in this trial 16 years later.”
Hathaway insisted the conviction was significant because it occurred close in time to when the witness identified the accused as the alleged murderer. She described forgery as a “crime involving sophistication” and said she intended to question the witness about her honesty, contrasting how “she portrays herself as an honest person versus how she acts.”
The public defender detailed the forgery case, stating that the witness wrote checks to herself from stolen checkbooks, using a new legal name she obtained while in witness protection. A friend was also involved. Hathaway said the stolen funds totaled between $2,500 and $3,000 over three days.
Judge McNaughton questioned the relevance of the 2009 conviction, noting it occurred after the earlier testimony and that the witness had not been charged with anything in the past 16 years. He barred the defense from mentioning the forgery conviction during cross-examination but allowed references to the 2003 and 2005 convictions.
Hathaway argued that the forgery conviction, which occurred just four years after the 2005 testimony, showed the witness’s credibility had not changed.
Judge McNaughton replied, “Noted. Let’s move on.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
