Cross examination into possible bankruptcy fraud did not constitute improper "other crimes" evidence in bank fraud trial

Earlier this week in this post, we reported on Brenda Hartman' s loss of her Oregon state insurance producer's license as a collateral conseqence of her conviction for committing bankruptcy fraud.  Today, we again are reporting on collateral consequences - only this time there was no bankruptcy criminal conviction - only evidence of possible bankruptcy fraud.

In United States v. Ross, No. 05-4469 (6th Cir., Sept. 21, 2007), Ross appealed his conviction on two counts of bank fraud for depositing multiple counterfeit checks as part of a so-called Nigerian counterfeit check scam.  During the course of trial, Ross testified on direct examination that he had filed a personal bankruptcy petition under chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code and "all the loans and people that [he] owed were put into the bankruptcy...."  Over a timely defense objection, the government was permitted to cross-examine Ross by attempting to elicit that Ross had improperly failed to schedule some of his personal creditors.  Ross was convicted of the bank fruad and on appeal argued that the government's cross-examination was improper Rule 404(b) evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts - namely bankruptcy fraud. 

The Sixth Circuit flatly rejected the argument holding that Ross' direct testimony that he scheduled all of his creditors "open[ed] the door for exploration of that statement on cross-examination."  Because the government is permitted to impeach any statement made by Ross on direct examination, the cross-examination - though it may have related to a possible bankruptcy fraud - was entirely permissible.