NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0662n.06 F iled: Novem ber 3, 2008 No. 06-6510 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UN I TE D ST AT ES, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. TH OM AS JEF F RES S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STR I CT C OU RT F OR TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B e fo re : K EN

NE DY , SU TT ON , a

nd Mc KE AG UE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. SUTTON, Circuit J udg e. Thomas Jeffre ss appea ls his felon-in-p o s s ession-of- a-f irea rm conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) . Be cause the alleg ed er rors in the district cour

t’s evidentiar

y
ru lin g s w e re a t mo st h arm le ss, we a ff ir m.
I.
I n J anuar y 2004, a police of

fice r in Br adley

County , Tenne ssee wa

tched Jeffre ss drive thr o u g h a s to p s ign , c ar e e nb r ie f

ly o f f th e r o a d an d dr iv e thr o u g h a

r e d li g h t. T h e o f

f ic e r p u ll ed be hin d Jef

fr e ss a nd a c tiv a te d h is l ig hts . Rathe r t ha n s top his c ar, Jef

fr e ss a c c e le ra

te d o nto I nte rs tate 75, prompting a chase that continued for near ly 15 miles at spee ds “in excess of 90 to 100 miles an h o u r , ” w i t h J e f

f r e s s o f t e ndr i v i n g o nt h e s h o u l d e r . J A 7 5
. J e f f r e s s e v e n tu a l l y e x i t e d

t h e h i g h w ay, spinning out of c ontrol at the bottom of the exit ramp. When he reg ained c ontrol and re -ente red the2

hig hw ay , tw o o ff

ic e rs in a se c on d po lic e c ar f oll ow e d h im a

nd too k th e le a d p os iti on

in t he purs uit
. Wit hin a few miles, traff

ic gre w conge sted. J eff

ress crashe d into the car

in front of him, came to a sto p, and e xite d his c ar h old inga

loa de d . 38 c a lib e r r e vo lve r. Tw o o ff ic e rs e xite d th e le a d c ar w ith the ir we a po ns dr awn . Jef

fr e ss p ut h is w e a

po n o n th e g ro un d, and

the of fi c e rs arr e ste d h im. A g rand jury

char g ed Jeffre ss with being a felon in possession of a firea rm in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 922 (g )( 1)
. He wa ive d his rig ht to a jur y tr ia l, a ft e r whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d h im guil ty at the conclusion of a bench trial. At his sentenc ing hear ing, J eff ress tol d the j udg e that he had lied

“ [a]b ou t no t w anti nga

jur y tr ia l,” JA 61 , and a sk e d fo r a tr ia l by jur y . Th e c ourt

g ra nte d th e re qu e st and vac ated Jeffre ss’s conviction.
Duri ngthe jur

y tr ia l, Je ff re ss s tip ulate d th a t he ha d b e e n c on vic ted of a fe lony be fo re his
arr est on this c harg e and that the g un at issue had trave led in inter state commerc e. Three of fi cer s te sti fi e d to the de ta ils of the c ha se , a nd tw o o ff ic e rs te sti fi e d th a t th e y

saw Je ff re ss e xit th e c ar w ith a g un in his hand. J eff

ress a lso testified that he ex ited the car wit h a gun in his hand. The jury found J eff ress guilty , and the c ourt sentenc ed him to 293 months i n prison.
II.
On a pp e a l, Jef fr e ss c ha lle ng e s tw o of

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e vid e nti ary ru lin g s. F ir st, he c la ims that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

imp ro pe rl y

a llo we d th e g ov e rnme nt t o a sk Jef fr e ss ab ou t his f

a lse state me nts at the wa iver-of

-a- jury -trial hea

ring . Second, he c laims that the court imprope rl y al l o wed the g overnme nt to ask J eff

ress about his prior convictions on cross ex amination. We revie w a dist rict court’s e videntiary

ruling s f o r abuse of discre tion, Tompkin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc ., 362 F.3d 882,3

897 (6th Cir. 2004), and will not reve rse a jury verdic t unle ss the evidentiar y ruling was mistaken and af fec ted the ver dict (which is to say , it was not harmless), United States v. Bak er , 458 F.3d 513, 520 (6th Cir. 2006). We ordinarily

ad d re s s t he propr iety

of evide ntiary

ruling s befor e conside ring the ha rm le ssn e ss o f a

n e rr or . B ut i n th is c a se Jef fr e ss h a s o ff

e re d n o p la

us ibl e theor y by whi ch the se
a lle g e d e rr or s c ou ld h a ve a ff e c te d th e ve rd ic t, n or c an we ide nti fy any su c h th e or y , a nd a c c or din g ly
we m o v e straig ht to the potential effe ct of these alleg ed er rors on his jury

conviction. Neither

set of questions related to, or elicited testimony about, the August 2004 incident. And to the extent the qu est io ns we re de sig ne d to imp e a c h Jef fr e ss, the y

sti ll h a d n o c on c e iva

ble e ff e c t on the ve rd ic t. Whe n i t co mes to the eleme nts of a § 922(g )(1) char g e, ther e wa s no releva nt conflict betwe en Jef fr e ss’ s te sti mony

a nd the te sti mony

of the thr e e of

fi c e rs . Jef

fr e ss, ind e e d, a dmi tte d th e e le me nts of the c harg e: He te stified that he exited his car while holdingthe fire arm a nd stipulated that he wa s a fe lon and that the fire arm in question trave led in interstate c ommerce . No doubt, questions about a def end an t ’s p ri o r c o n v i ct i o n s fo r r o b b ery an d aggr av at edro b b ery in some settings mig ht influence the j ury ’s conc lusion about the elements of a § 922(g ) cha

rg e. B ut that po ssi bil ity

is t oo re mot e wh e n th e de fe nd ant admits all t hree e lements of the c harge and off ers no plausible defe nse. Cf. United States v. Lawson , 5 35 F .3 d 4 34 , 4 39 n. 1 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) ; United States v. Daniel , 134 F.3d 1259, 1262–65 ( 6th Cir. 1998). Be cause J eff ress admitted to satisfy ing all three elements of a

felon-in- possession char g e, bec ause he offe red no pla us i b l e defe nse and be c a us e it i s n ot “ mor e pr ob a

ble tha n n ot t hat [any a lle g e d] e rr or

mate ri a lly a ff

e c te d the ve rd ic t” in4

t h i s setting, Bake r , 4 5 8 F
. 3 d a t 5 2 0 ( i n t e r n a l qu o t a t i o n m ar

k s o m i t t e d ) , Je f

f r e s s ’ s c h a l l e n g e to h is conviction fa ils as a matter of law.
III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.