(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. This Court has not yet held that the rule of Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 , 88 S.Ct. 258 , 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), is applicable to constitutionally infirm convictions used for impeachment. This is the case in which it should be declared that a convicted person cannot attack his conviction on the ground that a constitutionally infirm prior conviction was used for impeachment. This Court has not yet held that the rule of Burgett v. Texas, supra, applies to invalidate a sentence where a constitutionally infirm prior conviction was called to the attention of the sentencing judge by presentence report, or otherwise, before sentence was imposed. This is the case in which it should be declared that a convicted defendant cannot attack the sentence imposed by showing that the sentencing judge was informed about a constitutionally infirm prior conviction.

This writer cannot believe that the Supreme Court intended such a broad interpretation and application of the Burgett rule. Viewed realistically, it means that the most hoary and ancient of the confirmed, repetitive recidivists may, by applying the “domino theory” whereby the earliest of the convictions is declared void by application of Gideon, 1 fell each of the ensuing convictions and establish a clean unsullied record of pro-social conduct.

It has been a fundamental of our case-made jurisprudence that the principles announced in pertinent precedent should be viewed and interpreted in the light of the facts of the particular case. This is a salutary principle which this writer believes has not been entirely abandoned in contemporary jurisprudence. The principle recognizes the problems inherent in communication and expression, the difficulties of achieving pinpoint accuracy and the non-existence of words expressing exactly the same concept for the writer and the reader, the speaker and the listener. It recognizes the human frailty of inability to conceive, imagine and anticipate the applications which will be sought to be made of an announced principle, howsoever accurately expressed with semantic exactness. The principle also recognizes that judges are human beings and writing in favor of a position taken, however dispassionately, may become somewhat polemic in supporting the soundness of the decision advocated. This writer admires the genius of our system which contemplates a case by case review under differing sets of facts of the principles formulated and articulated in earlier precedents.

The majority opinion is based upon the following quotation from Burgett v. Texas, supra,:

The majority relies upon Gilday v. Scafati, 428 F.2d 1027 (1st Cir.1970), where the First Circuit said:

I think the First Circuit and the majority of this Court rely on a too literal reading of the Burgett opinion in disregard of the principle I have urged that we should look to the facts and to what actually was decided. Narrowly, the holding of the Burgett case is that if void prior convictions are brought to the attention of the jury by the prosecution in a one-stage recidivist trial, the result is a denial of due process. In that situation, inasmuch as the enhancement of punishment is directly dependent upon the validity of the prior conviction, it is the absolute duty of the prosecution to assure itself of that validity.

My interpretation of Burgett is that the words “support guilt” refer to the situation where the prior conviction is an essential element of the crime charged. For examples, under federal law, it is unlawful for a felon to transport a firearm in interstate commerce ( 18 U.S.C. § 922 ) and under California law, it is an offense for a felon to come upon the grounds of a reformatory in the nighttime (Cal. Penal Code, § 171(b)). In such cases, the status or condition of having suffered the prior felony conviction is essential to support the conviction and the prosecution, quite properly, is not permitted to rely upon a void conviction to establish such status. And when the prior conviction is “used against a person * * * to enhance punishment for another offense”, the Supreme Court, in my view, was alluding to recidivist statutes like the one involved in Burgett and like the Narcotics Drug Import and Export Act ( 21 U.S.C. § 174 ) and like the California Habitual Criminal Statute (Cal.Pen.Code, § 644). This is as far as I would now go in the application of Burgett , reserving, nevertheless, deference to the policy that it is worthwhile to consider future applications of the principle on a ease-by-case basis.

In the present case, two prior felony convictions were used to impeach defendant at his federal armed robbery trial. These later turned out to be vulnerable under the Gideon principle. It is my thesis that this fact does not justify or support an attack upon the federal conviction. It seems to me that the position of the majority, “[T]he Bur-gett rule against the use of uncounseled convictions to prove guilt or enhance punishment precludes the use of such evidence to impeach a defendant’s credibility as a witness”, constitutes an unwarranted extension of the Burgett decision and will involve state and federal *1296 courts in a morass of fruitless inquiry into the undiscernable prejudicial effect of such impeachment upon the trial as a whole. Further, the majority sub silen-tio overrules two decisions of the Court, Bloch v. United States, 238 F.2d 631 (1956), and Bloch v. United States, 226 F.2d 185 (1955), where the Court, in the first opinion, saw no error in a felony impeachment question asked by a prosecutor who knew the prior conviction was on appeal, and in the second affirmed the ruling despite the fact that the prior conviction had been reversed on appeal. Our Court there recognized that what really was in issue was the good faith of the prosecutor and that his use in good faith of a vulnerable prior conviction to impeach the defendant could not be relied upon to reverse the conviction. The same principle should be followed in the present case.

Moreover, I see no federal constitutional problem where the issue is properly analyzed as one of the prosecutor’s good faith.

On the question of sentence, the factors involved are even more imponderable. The majority thinks the imposition of the maximum sentence shows that the priors were used to enhance sentence. In my experience, so many factors affect the imposition of sentence that I cannot accept the premise. There never will be a case where a post-conviction remedy court will be able to tell whether knowledge of one or more prior convictions affected the sentence unless the sentence given was mandated by statute so that the prior record could have no effect. In the present case, the sentencing judge conducted an extensive colloquy before imposing sentence. A portion is copied in the margin. 2 There is more, but it *1297 seems to me to be a fair analysis that the sentencing judge was influenced primarily by defendant’s proneness to violence and the number of other outstanding charges than anything else. 3 It is not uncommon in my experience for a sentencing judge to take into consideration other charges pending (many times detainers have been placed for them) in enhancement of punishment and for other prosecuting officials to drop charges if a sufficiently substantial sentence is imposed. It is not even unusual for a defendant against whom a number of detainers have been lodged to request a substantial sentence .with the hope that the other charges will be dropped. On the present record, it is pure speculation that the invalidated prior convictions had an effect on the sentence.

Finally, I would like to suggest that when we consider the use of prior convictions for impeachment or when they are included in a pre-sentence presentation as part of the defendant’s prior history, it is not the conviction — the formality of conviction — that is important. It is the conduct that is represented by the conviction. The witness’ veracity is not impeached by the conviction. The conviction is only shorthand for the impeaching misconduct, and a rule of convenience has been adopted which permits impeachment by the shorthand method but prohibits it by showing other acts of misconduct, else the trial would be led into endless by-ways and side controversies. Invalidating the prior conviction does not erase the conduct on which it was based. This is even clearer in the field of sentencing where a competent presentence report does not simply recite the prior criminal record but describes the circumstances of each charge — even those that led to an acquittal. It is this history that influences the sentencing judge, not the formal convictions. For example, in a recent case the defendant had been acquitted of the charge of murdering his mother. It, nevertheless, was proper for the sentencing judge to co’nsider that incident where a loaded weapon was involved as bearing on defendant’s proneness to violent activity. And in the present case, the judge took into consideration conduct which had not yet been prosecuted to conviction — showing that it is the conduct, not the convic *1298 tion, which is relevant. Many times the circumstances of a prior conviction will cause a court to discount and disregard it completely in imposing sentence.

These are additional reasons in support of my conclusion that the Burgett rule should be applied only where the formal record of conviction of a felony is essential to support guilt or to enhance punishment.

In the context of the foregoing, perhaps my earlier statement that the majority relies on a too literal reading of the quotation was incorrect. There the emphasis was on “support guilt” and “enhance punishment.” But if the statement of principle in Burgett is read with strict literalness and the emphasis is placed on “to permit a conviction * * * to be used”, then my conclusion, that it is the required use of the formal record of conviction to attain the result under attack that is important, is clearly correct.

The majority’s treatment of the problems in this appeal is based on the necessary assumption that a federal constitutional issue of fair trial and due process of law is present whenever a jury or court is informed about a defendant’s prior criminal record. Yet the decisions of the Supreme Court specifically refute this assumption: Spencer v. Texas, 4 385 U.S. 554 , 87 S.Ct. 648 , 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967), where the procedure of a one-stage recidivist trial was affirmed; Rundle v. Johnson, 386 U.S. 14 , 87 S.Ct. 847 , 17 L.Ed.2d 695 (1967), where the procedure of admission of prior crimes in a one-stage murder trial to assist the jury in fixing punishment was affirmed. These decisions, viewed in association with Burgett , suggest that the broad application of the Burgett rule to impeachment evidence and sentencing information is not warranted and not intended. Cf. United States ex rel. Smith v. Fay, 409 F.2d 564 (2nd Cir.1969). While reference to dissenting opinions in support of a contention is apt to invoke ridicule, I believe the succinct dissent of three Justices in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 at 120 , 88 S.Ct. 258 at 264 , 19 L.Ed.2d 319 , to be pertinent:

This approach to the problems reminiscent of the attitude of our Court in the Bloch cases, supra, although it was rejected by the majority of the Supreme Court in a true recidivist trail where the void prior conviction was an essential of the prosecutor’s case, may nevertheless be revived to control judicial review in peripheral applications of the Burgett rule like the uses of it in this case.

I would affirm the District Court.

. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963).

. “THE COURT: How old were you when you first suffered a conviction — 17?

. My quotation from the sentencing colloquy is not to suggest that I think this post-conviction remedy court has a problem which warrants trying to dissect the mind of the sentencing judge. I merely wish to picture the kind of swamp we are getting ourselves bogged down in.

. “It is contended nonetheless that in this instance the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the exclusion of prejudicial evidence of prior convictions even though limiting instructions are given and even though a valid state purpose — enforcement of the habitual-offender statute- — is served. We recognize that the use of prior-crime evidence in a one-stage recidivist trial may be thought to represent a less cogent state interest than does its use for other purposes, in that other procedures for applying en-haneement-of-sentence statutes may be available to the State that are not suited in the other situations in which such evidence is introduced. We do not think that this distinction should lead to a different constitutional result.”