Congress has not accepted that expansive theory. 535 F.2d at 123. Two recent Third Circuit cases, decided the same day, have argued convincingly that petty larceny is not ordinarily a crime involving dishonesty or false statement under Rule 609(a)(1). See Government of Virgin Islands v. Toto, 529 F.2d 278, 282 (3rd Cir. 1976) (reviewing a March, 1975 trial, and- therefore applying the circuit’s traditional crimen falsi limitation on impeachment by misdemeanor conviction, but construing Rule 609(a)(2) in dictum); and Government of Virgin Islands v. Testamark, 528 F.2d 742, 743 (3d Cir. 1976) (actually applying Rule 609(a)(2), and holding that the new enactment tracks the circuit’s long-standing crimen falsi restriction). Contra, United States v. Carden, 529 F.2d 443, 446 (5th Cir. 1976) (<HOLDING>) “since the crime at issue involved
holding evidence of pending charges against a witness is inadmissible for impeachment purposes holding that the fact of a prior conviction for sentencing purposes need not be proved to a jury or admitted by defendant to satisfy the sixth amendment holding without the benefit of argument by the parties that a petty larceny conviction was properly admitted for impeachment purposes holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding misdemeanor conviction for petty larceny triggered disenfranchisement