Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 831.0

529US3

Unit: $U58

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

756

OHLER v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

this well-established commonsense principle by invoking
Rules 103 and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. But
neither of these Rules addresses the question at issue here.
Rule 103 sets forth the unremarkable propositions that a
party must make a timely objection to a ruling admitting
evidence and that a party cannot challenge an evidentiary
ruling unless it affects a substantial right.1 The Rule does
not purport to determine when a party waives a prior ob-
jection, and it is silent with respect to the effect of intro-
ducing evidence on direct examination, and later assigning
its admission as error on appeal.

Rule 609(a) is equally unavailing for Ohler;

it merely
identiﬁes the situations in which a witness’ prior convic-
tion may be admitted for impeachment purposes.2 The Rule
originally provided that admissible prior conviction evi-
dence could be elicited from the defendant or established by
public record during cross-examination, but it was amended
in 1990 to clarify that the evidence could also be introduced
on direct examination. According to Ohler, it follows from
this amendment that a party does not waive her objection
to the in limine ruling by introducing the evidence herself.
However, like Rule 103, Rule 609(a) simply does not address
this issue. There is no question that the Rule authorizes

1 Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a): “Error may not be predicated upon a
ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the
party is affected, and

“(1) . . . In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection
or motion to strike appears of record, stating the speciﬁc ground of objec-
tion, if the speciﬁc ground was not apparent from the context . . . .”

2 Rule 609(a): “For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness,
(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a
crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable
by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which
the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been con-
victed of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the
probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect
to the accused . . . .”