Opinion ID: 3037409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of the Right to a Defense

Text: Falciglia argues that the District Court denied him his Fifth Amendment right to a defense by ruling that the prosecution could introduce an incriminating telephone conversation between him and his wife as impeachment evidence. The District Court ruled that this evidence could only be used in the event that Falciglia testified. He did not testify. The Supreme Court has previously held that, where the District Court rules that the prosecution can impeach a testifying defendant with evidence of a prior conviction and the defendant does not thereafter testify, he has waived the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s ruling on impeachment. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 42 (1984) (“Because an accused’s decision whether to testify seldom turns on the resolution of one factor, a reviewing court cannot assume that the adverse ruling motivated a defendant’s decision not to testify.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). We have no way of knowing why Falciglia chose not to testify and whether the prosecution would have used the impeachment evidence had he testified. In this context, the waiver rule of Luce applies.