Opinion ID: 810883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Roy Jr.’s Prior Felony Convictions

Text: Roy Jr. was convicted of larceny by conversion (failure to return a rental car) on April 29, 1997, and “uttering and publishing” a forged check (forgery) sometime in 2003. He filed a motion in limine, citing Rule 609(1), to bar the admission of these convictions. At a pretrial hearing, the district court ruled that the Government could question Roy Jr. regarding the larceny conviction if he testified at trial but deferred its ruling as to the forgery conviction. At the next status date, the parties discussed the forgery conviction and whether the Gov16 Nos. 11-1013, 11-3008 & 11-3082 ernment intended to introduce it during its case-in-chief. The Government stated it did not, to which Roy Jr.’s counsel responded, “End of the problem.” The district court offered no further instructions regarding the forgery conviction. Roy Jr. contends these determinations amount to an abuse of discretion because the offenses were unduly prejudicial, but he encounters an insur- mountable hurdle. During the Government’s case-inchief, the Government did not publish to the jury or question any witnesses about either of Roy Jr.’s convictions.5 It was not until Roy Jr. testified on direct examination that the jury heard about the two convictions. Roy Jr. alone was responsible for putting the information before the jury, and the Supreme Court has provided us guidance for such a situation: “[A] defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error.” Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 760 (2000). Roy Jr.’s introduction of his prior convictions during his direct examination may have removed their “sting,” but it also pre- 5 The Consent Order contained a reference to Roy Jr.’s forgery conviction and his failure to disclose it to participants of the Spend and Redeem Program. The fact that the Consent Order was admitted during the Government’s case-in-chief does not, however, affect our analysis because the Government did not publish to the jury, or question anyone about, the section of the Consent Order concerning Roy Jr.’s forgery conviction until Roy Jr. testified. Nos. 11-1013, 11-3008 & 11-3082 17 cluded him from appealing the district court’s decision to admit the evidence as well. See Clarett v. Roberts, 657 F.3d 664, 670 (7th Cir. 2011).