Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 833

529US3

Unit: $U58

[09-26-01 12:26:35] PAGES PGT: OPIN

758

OHLER v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

The defendant must choose whether to introduce the con-
viction on direct examination and remove the sting or to
take her chances with the prosecutor’s possible elicitation of
the conviction on cross-examination.

The Government, too, in a case such as this, must make
If the defendant testiﬁes, it must choose whether
a choice.
or not to impeach her by use of her prior conviction. Here
the trial judge had indicated he would allow its use,3 but
the Government still had to consider whether its use might
be deemed reversible error on appeal. This choice is often
based on the Government’s appraisal of the apparent effect
of the defendant’s testimony.
If she has offered a plausible,
innocent explanation of the evidence against her, it will be
inclined to use the prior conviction; if not, it may decide
not to risk possible reversal on appeal from its use.

Due to the structure of trial, the Government has one
inherent advantage in these competing trial strategies.
Cross-examination comes after direct examination, and
therefore the Government need not make its choice until
the defendant has elected whether or not to take the stand
in her own behalf and after the Government has heard the
defendant testify.

Ohler’s submission would deny to the Government its
usual right to decide, after she testiﬁes, whether or not to
use her prior conviction against her. She seeks to short
circuit that decisional process by offering the conviction her-
self (and thereby removing the sting) and still preserve its
admission as a claim of error on appeal.

3 The District Court ruled on the ﬁrst day of trial that Ohler’s prior
conviction would be admissible for impeachment purposes, and the court
likely would have abided by that ruling at trial. However, in limine
rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always
change his mind during the course of a trial. See Luce v. United States,
469 U. S. 38, 41–42 (1984). Ohler’s position, therefore, would deprive the
trial court of the opportunity to change its mind after hearing all of the
defendant’s testimony.