Opinion ID: 76025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Luce v. United States

Text: 19 We begin our analysis of this issue with Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 460, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984), because it involved a similar situation. In Luce, the Supreme Court concluded that a district court's in limine evidentiary ruling, permitting prior conviction evidence under Rule 609(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, was not reviewable because the defendant never testified and thus the government's prior conviction evidence never was introduced at trial. 5 Luce, 469 U.S. at 42-43, 105 S.Ct. 460. 20 In Luce, the district court entered an in limine ruling during trial that a prior conviction of the defendant could be used to impeach him if the defendant testified at trial. Id. at 39-40, 105 S.Ct. 460. As a result, the defendant chose not to testify at trial. Id. at 40, 105 S.Ct. 460. The Supreme Court in Luce expressly considered whether a defendant may obtain appellate review of a district court's in limine evidentiary ruling concerning the admissibility of the defendant's prior conviction when the defendant chose not to testify as a result of the district court's ruling. Id. at 39, 105 S.Ct. 460. The Supreme Court recognized that [a] reviewing court is handicapped in any effort to rule on subtle evidentiary questions outside a factual context. Id. at 41, 105 S.Ct. 460. It further observed that [a]ny possible harm flowing from a district court's in limine ruling permitting impeachment by a prior conviction is wholly speculative, id., and recognized that a trial court's ruling is subject to change when the case unfolds, particularly if the actual testimony differs from what was contained in the defendant's proffer. Id. The Supreme Court also noted that even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling. Id. at 41-42, 105 S.Ct. 460. 21 In Luce, the Supreme Court further recognized that the defendant's failure to testify created difficulties for the reviewing court because of the question of harmless error. Id. at 42, 105 S.Ct. 460. The Supreme Court reasoned that [w]ere in limine rulings under Rule 609(a) reviewable on appeal, almost any error would result in the windfall of automatic reversal; the appellate court could not logically term `harmless' an error that presumptively kept the defendant from testifying. Id. In view of these reasons, the Supreme Court held that to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify. Id. at 43, 105 S.Ct. 460. 22 Subsequently, courts have not limited Luce to only evidentiary rulings under Rule 609(a). For instance, this Court in United States v. Dimatteo, 759 F.2d 831 (11th Cir.1985), extended Luce to apply to in limine rulings under Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 6 Adopting the Supreme Court's rationale in Luce, we held that a defendant's decision not to present a witness[,] whose credibility would have formed the basis of an evidentiary objection under Rule 608(b)[,] forecloses our ability to review the claim that the district court might have erroneously allowed extrinsic evidence to impeach that witness in violation of Rule 608(b). Id. at 833; see also United States v. Studnicka, 777 F.2d 652, 660 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that defendant's tactical decision not to take the stand precludes defendant from challenging on appeal the trial court's ruling that allowed the prosecutor to question defendant about certain matters).