Document: 529 U.S. 753120 S.Ct. 1851146 L.Ed.2d 826 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OHLERv.UNITED CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT No. 98_9828. Argued March 20, 2000 Decided May 22, Petitioner Ohler was tried on drug charges. Federal District granted Government's motion limine to admit her prior felony conviction impeachment evidence under Rule Evidence 609(a)(1). testified trial and admitted direct examination. jury convicted her. In affirming, Ninth Circuit rejected challenge Court's ruling, holding that she waived objection introducing during Held: A defendant who preemptively introduces examination may not admission such appeal. attempts avoid well-established commonsense principle party cannot complain appeal erroneously invoking Rules 103 609. However, neither addresses question issue here. She also argues applying waiver rule situation would compel forgo tactical advantage order ruling. But both Government criminal must make choices progresses. Ohler's submission deny its usual right choose, after testifies, whether or use against seeks short-circuit decisional process offering herself (and thereby removing sting) still preserve claim error here runs into position taken Luce States, 469 38, 41, any possible harm flowing from district court's ruling permitting wholly speculative. Only when exercises option elicit testimony an appellate court confronted case where, normal rules, can denial substantial if fact proved erroneous. Finally, does unconstitutionally burden testify, because prevent taking stand presenting admissible chooses. Pp. 2_7. 169 F.3d 1200, affirmed. Rehnquist, C. J., delivered Court, which O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, JJ., joined. Souter, filed dissenting opinion, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Opinion 1 NOTICE: This subject formal revision before publication preliminary print Reports. Readers are requested notify Decisions, Supreme Washington, D. 20543, typographical other errors, corrections made goes press. 98_9828 MARIA SUZUKI OHLER, PETITIONERv.UNITED 2 ON WRIT APPEALSFOR 3 [May 2000] 4 Chief Justice Rehnquist Court. 5 Petitioner, Maria Ohler, arrested charged importation marijuana possession intent distribute. seeking had methamphetamine 1993. counts, Appeals We agree 6 drove van Mexico California July 1997. As passed through San Ysidro Port Entry, customs inspector noticed someone tampered one van's interior panels. Inspectors searched discovered approximately 81 pounds marijuana. Before trial, motions character 404(b) denied evidence, reserved could used purposes. On first day ruled testified, App. 97_98. own defense, denying knowledge found guilty sentenced 30 months prison years' supervised release. Id., 140_141. 7 appeal, challenged allowing affirmed, 1200 (1999). certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits regarding review available situation. 528 ___ Fisher, 106 622 (CA5 1997) (allowing review); Smiley, 997 F.2d 475 (CA8 1993) (holding waived). affirm. 8 Generally, admitted. J. Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's §103.14, 103-30 (2d ed. 2000). Cf. Strong, McCormick §55, p. 246 (5th 1999) ("If objected certain himself produces his witness same fact, he objection."). consequences 609 Evidence. these sets forth unremarkable propositions timely admitting evidentiary unless affects right.1 purport determine waives objection, silent respect effect examination, later assigning 9 609(a) equally unavailing Ohler; merely identifies situations witness' purposes.2 originally provided elicited established public record cross-examination, amended 1990 clarify introduced According follows amendment waive herself. like 103, simply address issue. There authorizes eliciting more than that. 10 Next, unfair apply compels forced wait believe less credible trying conceal conviction. disputes unduly disadvantaged waiting prosecution introduce cross-examination. First, debatable jurors actually perceive Brief 28. Second, even do consider credible, suggests unwarranted realize disclosed only failing persuade exclude it. Ibid. 11 Whatever merits contentions, they tend obscure For example, decide take behalf. If innocent mitigating explanation might otherwise incriminate, acquittal likely takes stand. Here, petitioner van, without permission, gone there retrieve van. once including convictions, decision prove damaging instead helpful. further choice decides notwithstanding choose remove sting chances prosecutor's elicitation 12 Government, too, this, choice. impeach Here judge indicated allow use,3 deemed reversible often based appraisal apparent defendant's testimony. offered plausible, her, inclined conviction; not, risk reversal use. 13 Due structure inherent competing strategies. Cross-examination comes therefore need until elected behalf heard testify. 14 Petitioner's decide, 15 similar, identical, 38 (1984), "[a]ny speculative." 41. government rules our view, nothing "unfair," puts it, about putting accordance trial. 16 burdens relies Rock Arkansas, 483 44 (1987), where we held prohibition hypnotically refreshed interfered course cross-examination sense, tactics deter But, said McGautha California, 402 183, 215 (1971): 17 "It long then privilege matters reasonably related matter . It thought overly harsh require determination account brought out generally recognized impeached proof convictions like. _ Again, inconsistent enlightened administration justice weigh pros cons deciding testify." 18 reasons, conclude error. 19 judgment 20 so ordered. 21 whom Breyer join, dissenting. 22 majority holds testifying perforce adverse impeachment. support precedent, reasonable objectives I respectfully dissent. 23 claims tangential (1984). Ante, 6. remained off 609(a). Since never suffered impeachment, should allowed anyway, rationale threatened discouraged exercise defend answer turned practical realities review. 24 An why refused nor compare actual have occurred accused With unavoidable uncertainty how much harmed defendant, affected all, courts either attempt speculative harmless-error analysis, grant new trials some defendants were intended requiring therefore, did derive general notion fairness; acknowledged incapacity assess significance remains silent. 25 different, factual reviewed. controlled counsel's enquire earlier defense lawyers set their witnesses, clients. analysis harmless difficult came raises none difficulties turned, dictate today's result.1 26 majority's principal reliance precedent "commonsense" "a admitted." 2. is, common sense approves limits reach point well short case. makes first, freely chosen particular sees opponent's He suffers prejudice. Mercer Theriot, 377 152, 154 (1964) (per curiam); Wright K. Graham, Practice Procedure: §5039, 203 (1977). second, objecting positions, requesting precisely behest. "The permitted `to blow hot cold' way." 246, n. 1999). 27 Neither reasons applies (as here) opposed mitigate hands adversary. Such falls beyond scope principle, scholarship almost uniformly treats exceptional. See, e.g., Wigmore, §18, 836 (P. Tillers rev. 1983) ("[A] unsuccessful expects proponent offer able waiving error"); Handbook §103.4, (1981) ("However, bring over minimize constituting objection"); McCormick, supra, ("[W]hen [a party's] overruled, entitled treat `law trial' explain rebut, can, protest"); Louisell Mueller, §11, 65 (1977) ("Having best objecting, adversary indeed ill treated thrown all away doing protect own").2 thrust law then, fails approach, points rather clearly direction. 28 rule, reduced saying "there `unfair' trial."3 Things simple, however. 29 Any rule's fairness conditions fall serve objects general, particular, designed achieve. Thus provisions 102, "[t]hese shall construed secure administration, elimination unjustifiable expense delay, promotion growth development end truth ascertained proceedings justly determined." judge's job, accordingly, curb battle favor weighing calmly getting most sensible understanding whatever gave rise controversy court. side gains advantage, assists uncovering truth. Today's claim. Previously witnesses testify honestly, raise ordinary witness's readiness speak truthfully. factfinder appreciates heightened possibility perjury respond scrutiny, discloses outset testimony, bear those mind scrutinize what says carefully. purpose 609, making credibility, thus fully served occurred. 31 true revealed revelation warns factfinder, timing disclosure more. feel anything meant them. jury's assessment knowing committed crimes past, blaming forthcoming seemingly been. Creating impression current deceit concealment very odds behind obviously antithetical dispassionate factfinding sound conclusion. chance create dismissive term; affect outcome disserves search 32 Allowing tends promote depriving entitled. reason discourage herself, necessarily does. Notes 33 1. 103(a): "Error predicated upon admits excludes affected, (1) strike appears record, stating specific ground context ." 34 609(a): "For attacking credibility witness, crime admitted, 403, punishable death imprisonment excess year convicted, determines probative value outweighs prejudicial 35 3. purposes, abided rulings binding judge, always change 41_42 position, deprive opportunity hearing 36 anticipated much: clear, course, conviction, reviewable along complete detailing nature petitioner's impact verdict." U.S., are, issues arise cases; unable render final definitive focus potential difficulties, I, though lower addressed Wilson Williams, 182 562 (CA7 (en banc). purposes circumstance plainly final. 37 cited treatises turns, introduction exclusion. lawyer elicits having failed them excluded, defensive convictions; desire client. irrelevant invokes. just given, begs question, "normal trial" circumstances devised.

Category: 0