Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 832.0

529US3

Unit: $U58

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

Cite as: 529 U. S. 753 (2000)

757

Opinion of the Court

the eliciting of a prior conviction on direct examination, but
it does no more than that.

Next, Ohler argues that it would be unfair to apply such
a waiver rule in this situation because it compels a defend-
ant to forgo the tactical advantage of pre-emptively introduc-
ing the conviction in order to appeal the in limine ruling.
She argues that if a defendant is forced to wait for evidence
of the conviction to be introduced on cross-examination, the
jury will believe that the defendant is less credible because
she was trying to conceal the conviction. The Government
disputes that the defendant is unduly disadvantaged by wait-
ing for the prosecution to introduce the conviction on cross-
examination. First, the Government argues that it is de-
batable whether jurors actually perceive a defendant to be
more credible if she introduces a conviction herself. Brief
for United States 28. Second, even if jurors do consider the
defendant more credible, the Government suggests that it is
an unwarranted advantage because the jury does not realize
that the defendant disclosed the conviction only after failing
to persuade the court to exclude it.

Ibid.

Whatever the merits of these contentions, they tend to
obscure the fact that both the Government and the defendant
in a criminal trial must make choices as the trial progresses.
For example, the defendant must decide whether or not to
If she has an innocent
take the stand in her own behalf.
or mitigating explanation for evidence that might other-
wise incriminate, acquittal may be more likely if she takes
the stand. Here, for example, Ohler testiﬁed that she had
no knowledge of the marijuana discovered in the van, that
the van had been taken to Mexico without her permis-
sion, and that she had gone there simply to retrieve the van.
But once the defendant testiﬁes, she is subject to cross-
examination,
including impeachment by prior convictions,
and the decision to take the stand may prove damaging in-
stead of helpful. A defendant has a further choice to make
if she decides to testify, notwithstanding a prior conviction.