Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 828

529US3

Unit: $U58

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

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

753

Syllabus

OHLER v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the ninth circuit

No. 98–9828. Argued March 20, 2000—Decided May 22, 2000

Petitioner Ohler was tried on drug charges. The Federal District Court
granted the Government’s motion in limine to admit her prior felony
drug conviction as impeachment evidence under Federal Rule of Evi-
dence 609(a)(1). Ohler testiﬁed at trial and admitted the prior convic-
tion on direct examination. The jury convicted her.
In afﬁrming, the
Ninth Circuit rejected her challenge to the District Court’s in limine
ruling, holding that she waived her objection by introducing the evi-
dence during her direct examination.

Held: A defendant who pre-emptively introduces evidence of a prior con-
viction on direct examination may not challenge the admission of such
evidence on appeal. Ohler attempts to avoid the well-established com-
monsense principle that a party introducing evidence cannot complain
on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted by invoking Fed-
eral Rules of Evidence 103 and 609. However, neither Rule addresses
the question at issue here. She also argues that applying such a waiver
rule in this situation would compel a defendant to forgo the tactical
advantage of pre-emptively introducing the conviction in order to appeal
the in limine ruling. But both the Government and the defendant in a
criminal trial must make choices as the trial progresses. Ohler’s sub-
mission would deny to the Government its usual right to choose, after
she testiﬁes, whether or not to use her prior conviction against her.
She seeks to short-circuit that decisional process by offering the con-
viction herself (and thereby removing the sting) and still preserve its
admission as a claim of error on appeal. But here she runs into the
position taken by the Court in Luce v. United States, 469 U. S. 38, 41,
that any possible harm ﬂowing from a district court’s in limine ruling
permitting impeachment by a prior conviction is wholly speculative.
Only when the Government exercises its option to elicit the testimony
is an appellate court confronted with a case where, under normal trial
rules, the defendant can claim the denial of a substantial right if in fact
the district court’s in limine ruling proved to be erroneous. Finally,
applying this rule to Ohler’s situation does not unconstitutionally bur-
den her right to testify, because the rule does not prevent her from
taking the stand and presenting any admissible testimony she chooses.
Pp. 755–760.

169 F. 3d 1200, afﬁrmed.