Case Citation: United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45 (1984) Parties: United States, Plaintiff / Appellant John Abel, defendant/ Appellee Facts: John Abel and two associates were accused of robbing a bank in California. Abel’s associates pleaded guilty but he did not. At trial, one of his former associates Kurt Ehle, identified Abel as a co-author in the robbery. Abel tried to counter that testimony with a testimony of a common friend of both him and Ehle but he still was convicted based on Ehle’s accusation. His counter testimony was considered invalid, Abel believed that it was not a fair so he then proceeded to appeal the trial court’s decision making it all the way to the Supreme Court. Procedural History: …show more content…
Holdings: Issue 1: Yes, the testimony would be admissible. The Supreme Court determined that Mills testimony was bias because of their involvement with the gang and being bias is relevant in the case making it applicable under Rule 401. Reasoning: Issue 1: Although the only thing that has to do with the term “bias” in the federal rules it’s explaining the relationship between two parties, there are not any implications clearly stated in for being “bias”. The fact that Mills lied about his involvement in the organization proves that he was “bias” towards Abel and he lied to protect his friend maintaining the organizations’ code of conduct and his friendship. The testimony was admissible under Rule 401 because is relevant to the case and Rule 402 because by being relevant it becomes admissible. Therefore, leaving Abel with no way to counter Ehle’s accusations. Decision: The Supreme Court did not approve the testimony provided by the defense to counter the accusation made on Ehle’s behalf so it reversed the decision and Abel loss the