USA v. White

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 26-CR-54-JFH
TREVOR LEE WHITE,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant Trevor Lee White’s Objections [Dkt. No. 31] to the United
States of America’s (“Government”) Notice of Intent to Intent to Introduce Defendant’s Prior
Convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 609 [Dkt. No. 27]. For the following reasons,
Defendant’s Objections are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART.
BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2026, a federal grandy jury indicted Defendant with Felon in Possession of
Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(8). Dkt. No. 2. According to the
Indictment, Defendant possessed a firearm and ammunition on July 27, 2024, after previously
being convicted of a felony. His trial is currently set for October 5, 2026. Dkt. No. 32. If he
chooses to testify, the Government seeks to impeach him with eleven (identified as ten in its Rule
609 Notice) of his prior convictions. Dkt. No. 27.
AUTHORITY AND ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Evidence 609 provides several scenarios where the Government can
impeach a defendant-witness’s character for truthfulness with his prior criminal convictions.
First, convictions of a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for over one year must
be admitted for such purposes if “the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 1 of 8

2
effect to that defendant.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(B). The Tenth Circuit has identified five factors
to consider whether exclusion of evidence is warranted under this Rule. See United States v.
Smalls, 752 F.3d 1227, 1240 (10th Cir. 2014). These are: (1) the impeachment value of the
defendant’s prior offenses; (2) the dates of the convictions and the defendant's subsequent history;
(3) the similarity between the past offenses and charged crimes; (4) the importance of the
defendant's testimony; and (5) the centrality of the defendant's credibility at trial. Id.
Second, a prior conviction for any crime, regardless of its punishment, must be admitted
“if the court can readily determine that establishing the elements of the crime required proving—
or the witness’s admitting—a dishonest act or false statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(2). “[C]rimes
characterized by an element of deceit or deliberate interference with the truth are per se crimes of
dishonesty or false statement.” Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 1017 (10th Cir. 2019) (quotations
and citations omitted). Importantly, “admission of evidence under Rule 609(a)(2) is not subject to
the Rule 403 balancing test.” Id. at 1018. So, evidence of conviction of a crimen falsi must be
admitted for impeachment purposes, regardless of its prejudicial effect.
Finally, if more than ten years have passed since the defendant-witness’s conviction or
release from confinement for it, whichever is later, then that conviction is admissible only if “its
probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its
prejudicial effect.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(b).
A. Defendant’s 2008 and 2009 convictions are inadmissible for impeachment purposes.
Pursuant to its Rule 609 Notice, the Government seeks to impeach Defendant with five felony
convictions from 2008 and 2009. These are:
(1) A conviction on December 15, 2008, for possession of a stolen vehicle (Case
No. CF-2008-438, Bryan County, Okla.);
(2) A conviction on June 11, 2009, for second-degree burglary (Case No. CF-2008-
110 Bryan County, Okla.);
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 2 of 8

3
(3) A conviction on June 11, 2009, for larceny of automobile (Case No. CF-2008-
115, Bryan County, Okla.);
(4) A conviction on June 11, 2009, for two counts of second-degree burglary (Case
No. CF-2009-69, Bryan County, Okla.); and
(5) A conviction on June 11, 2009, for aggravated assault and battery (Case No.
CF-2009-197, Bryan County, Okla.).
Dkt. No. 27 at 1. All of these convictions occurred over ten years ago, and the Government does
not provide a release date from confinement for any of these convictions. Accordingly, these
convictions are admissible only if their “probative value, supported by specific facts and
circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.” Fed. R. Evid. 609(b). And, the
Government provides no supporting facts, circumstances, or any other argument as to why the
relevancy of these convictions substantially outweigh their prejudicial effect. These convictions
are therefore INADMISSIBLE for impeachment purposes.
B. Defendant’s 2017 and 2020 convictions are admissible for impeachment purposes.
The Government also seeks to admit another six of his felony convictions from 2017 and
2020. These include:
(6) A conviction on September 6, 2017, for false personation of another to create
liability (Case No. CF-2017-425, Bryan County, Okla.);
(7) A conviction on October 23, 2020, for third-degree burglary (Case No. CF-
2019-396, Bryan County, Okla.);
(8) A conviction on October 23, 2020, for third-degree burglary (Case No. CF-
2019-444, Bryan County, Okla.);
(9) A conviction on October 23, 2020, for eluding/attempting to elude a police
officer (Case No. CF-2020-19, Bryan County, Okla.);
(10) A conviction on October 23, 2020, for possession of a stolen vehicle (Case No.
CF-2020-19, Bryan County, Okla.); and
(11) A conviction on October 23, 2020, for knowingly concealing stolen property
(Case No. CF-2020-57, Bryan County, Okla.).
Dkt. No. 27 at 1. All of these convictions are admissible for impeachment purposes.
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 3 of 8

4
1. Defendant’s 2017 conviction for false personation and 2020 conviction for
knowingly concealing stolen property must be admitted under Rule 609(a)(2).
Two of these convictions must be admitted under Rule 609(a)(2). The first is Defendant’s
2017 conviction for false personation under 21 Okla. Stat. § 1531. A conviction under this statute
requires that (1) “the defendant falsely assumed the identity of another person;” (2) “the
impersonation of that identity was intentional;” (3) “under that false identity the defendant did any
act that might have made the other person liable to (any lawsuit or prosecution)/(pay any money)/
(incur any charge/forfeiture/penalty);” (4) “if the act had been done by the other person.” Okla.
Uniform Jury Instructions CR 5-50. Based on these elements, the Court “can readily determine”
that this conviction required a dishonest act—the intentional false impersonation of another.
Furthermore, other federal courts have also held that convictions for false personation are
admissible under Rule 609(a)(2). See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 554 F. App'x 460, 471 (6th Cir.
2014); United States v. Gomez, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1195 (C.D. Cal. 2011); Brandon v. Kinter,
13-CV-939, 2021 WL 3032693, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. July 19, 2021). Accordingly, this conviction must
be admitted.
The same is true for Defendant’s 2020 conviction for knowingly concealing stolen
property. There, Defendant was convicted under 21 Okla. Stat. § 1713, which requires the
prosecution to establish that (1) Defendant concealed (2) stolen property (2) from the owner or
from the person having a possessory right of that property (4) that the Defendant knew or
reasonably should have known was stolen, and (5) Defendant intended to permanently deprive the
owner or person of that property. See Okla. Uniform Jury Instructions CR 5-113. This crime also
involved an element of deceit—the concealment of stolen property from its owner or rightful
possessor. Furthermore, other courts have held that concealment of stolen property may be
admissible under Rule 609(a)(2). See, e.g., McHenry v. Chadwick, 896 F.2d 184, 189 (6th Cir.
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 4 of 8

5
1990) (discussing Tennessee v. Martin, 642 S.W.2d 720, 724 (Tenn. 1982); Alexander v. Hoffner,
No. 15-CV-11364, 2018 WL 4658682, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 27, 2018) (discussing Michigan v.
Alexander, No. 306085, 2012 WL 6215272, at *2-3 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2012)). Therefore,
this conviction must be admitted as well.
2. Defendant’s 2020 convictions for burglary, eluding/attempting to elude police, and
possession of a stolen vehicle are admissible under Rule 609(a)(1).
Because Defendant’s remaining convictions (listed as 7-10 above) occurred within the last
ten years and did not clearly require a dishonest act or false statement, the Court must examine the
admissibility of these convictions under Rule 609(a)(1). This requires application of the Smalls
factors. See 752 F.3d at 1240. These factors ultimately favor admission.
The first Smalls factor requires the Court to evaluate the impeachment value of a
defendant’s prior crimes. Id. “[A] prior conviction is more likely to be admissible where it
involves a crime that bears on defendant’s credibility.” United States v. Ahaisse, No. 2020-CR-
106-CVE, 2021 WL 2290574, at *2 (N. D. Okla. June 4, 2021). Indeed, “prior convictions for
robbery are probative of veracity.” United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3d 1477, 1488 (9th Cir. 1995)
see also United States v. Brown, 784 F.2d 1033, 1039 (10th Cir. 1986) (affirming admission of
prior burglary conviction under Rule 609). The same is true for eluding or attempting to elude
police and for possession of a stolen vehicle. See United States v. Crittenden, No. 23-CR-018-
GKF, 2023 WL 2967891, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 17, 2023) (stating that “eluding a police officer
suggests dishonesty” for purposes of Rule 609); see also United States v. Lee, No. CR-24-214-
RAW, 2025 WL 1490044, at *2 (E.D. Okla. May 16, 2025) (“Each of the listed crimes has
impeachment value – the convictions for possession of a stolen vehicle and eluding/attempting to
elude having the most”). Because these convictions bear on Defendant’s veracity, this factor favors
admission.
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 5 of 8

6
The second factor considers the duration of time between a defendant’s prior convictions
and the current offense. Importantly, “the probative value of an older conviction may remain
undiminished if the defendant was recently released from confinement or has multiple intervening
convictions, both of which could suggest his character has not improved.” Ahaisse, No. 2020-CR-
106, 2021 WL 2290574, at *2 (N.D. Okla. June 4, 2021) (quoting United States v. Caldwell, 760
F.3d 267, 287 (3d Cir. 2014)). And here, Defendant has had six felony convictions within the last
ten years, five of which occurred within four years of his alleged possession of a firearm. The
number of convictions within this relatively recent period favors admission.
The third Smalls factor, which compares the similarity of the current charged crime to a
defendant’s prior convictions, “weighs against admitting the prior conviction for impeachment if
the crimes are similar.” Ahaisse, No. 2020-CR-106, 2021 WL 2290574, at *3 (citing Caldwell,
760 F.3d at 288). Indeed, “[t]he greater the similarity of the charged crime to the past crime, the
higher the likelihood that a jury will be tempted to infer criminal propensity, rather than use the
information for its intended purpose–impeachment of credibility.” Id. This danger is lower here.
Indeed, none of Defendant’s remaining crimes involved a firearm-related charge. This factor also
favors admission.
When considering the fourth factor, “the Court must determine whether the apprehension
of potential impeachment by prior convictions will cause defendant to abstain from testifying, thus
damaging his right to a full defense.” Ahaisse, No. 2020-CR-106, 2021 WL 2290574, at *3 (citing
United States v. Cueto, 506 F. Supp. 9, 14 (W.D. Okla. 1979)). “If the prior conviction is incredibly
damaging or prejudicial, that counsels against admitting the prior conviction.” Id. Defendant’s
remaining convictions concern burglary, possession of property, eluding the police. None of these
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 6 of 8

7
convictions are particularly prejudicial or otherwise paint Defendant as a heinous or dangerous
individual. Thus, this factor favors admission as well.
Finally, when evaluating “the centrality of defendant’s credibility at trial,” the Court must
consider “whether defendant’s credibility is a material consideration for the jury. Impeachment by
prior conviction is not as important if defendant's anticipated testimony will not be central to a jury
determination–e.g., if defendant's testimony is corroborated by other sources.” Ahaisse, No. 2020-
CR-0106, 2021 WL 2290574, at *3. By contrast, “where a case is reduced to a swearing contest
between witnesses, the probative value of a conviction is increased.” Id. (citing Caldwell, 760
F.3d at 288). Here, the Government will likely introduce investigation reports, photographs, and
other physical evidence related to Defendant’s possession of the firearm and ammunition. Thus,
this case is less likely to be “reduced to a swearing contest between witnesses,” and his credibility
is less likely to be a deciding factor in his guilt. Id. Accordingly, this factor disfavors admission.
Following a review of the Smalls factors, the Court must determine “whether, in light of
those factors, the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.” Ahaisse, No.
2020-CR-0106, 2021 WL 2290574, at *4 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1)(B)). Here, four of the
five Smalls factors—including their impeachment value—favor admission. Therefore,
Defendant’s 2020 convictions for burglary, eluding/attempting to elude police, and possession of
a stolen vehicle are admissible under Rule 609(a)(1).
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Objections [Dkt. No. 31] to the
Government’s Rule 609 Notice [Dkt. No. 27] are SUSTAINED IN PART and OVERRULED IN
PART. Defendant’s convictions from 2008 and 2009 are inadmissible for impeachment purposes.
In contrast, Defendant’s convictions from 2017 and 2020 are admissible for impeachment
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 7 of 8

8
purposes. The scope of impeachment will be limited to “the essential facts of convictions, the
nature of the crimes, and the punishment.” United States v. Commanche, 577 F.3d 1261, 1271
(10th Cir. 2009). Finally, these rulings are preliminary and subject to change as the trial unfolds.
Dated this 18th day of August 2026.
JOHN F. HEIL, III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6:26-cr-00054-JFH Document 42 Filed in ED/OK on 08/18/26 Page 8 of 8