Luce v. United States
469 U.S. 38 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To raise and preserve for appellate review a claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a), a defendant must testify at trial.
Facts:
- Luce was indicted on federal charges of conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Luce had a prior state conviction from 1974 for possession of a controlled substance.
- During his trial, Luce's attorney expressed concern that if Luce testified, the government would use the prior conviction to impeach his credibility.
- Luce did not make a commitment that he would testify if the prior conviction were excluded, nor did he make a proffer to the court about what his testimony would be.
- After the trial court issued its ruling on the admissibility of the prior conviction, Luce chose not to testify.
Procedural Posture:
- Luce was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
- During trial, Luce filed a motion in limine to preclude the government from using a prior state conviction to impeach him under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a).
- The District Court denied the motion, ruling that the conviction was permissible impeachment evidence but noting the ruling could change depending on Luce's actual testimony.
- A jury found Luce guilty on all charges.
- Luce (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing the District Court abused its discretion.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that it would not review the in limine ruling because Luce did not testify.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant preserve for appellate review a claim of improper impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) if the defendant decides not to testify after the trial court denies a motion to exclude a prior conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. A defendant does not preserve the claim for appellate review without testifying. For a reviewing court to properly apply the balancing test required by Rule 609(a)(1)—weighing the probative value of a prior conviction against its prejudicial effect—it must have a concrete factual context, which is absent when the defendant does not testify. Any potential harm from an in limine ruling is wholly speculative because the trial judge's ruling is subject to change as the case unfolds, the prosecutor may have chosen not to use the conviction, and it is impossible to know if the defendant's decision not to testify was actually motivated by the adverse ruling. Furthermore, without the defendant's testimony, an appellate court cannot conduct a harmless-error analysis, meaning any error would lead to an automatic reversal, creating a windfall for the defendant and encouraging motions made solely to 'plant' reversible error.
Concurring - Justice Brennan
No. The Court's holding is correct that a defendant must testify to challenge a Rule 609(a) ruling on appeal because the required balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect can only be evaluated in a specific factual context. However, this holding should be understood as limited only to Rule 609(a) rulings. For in limine rulings that turn on purely legal or constitutional questions, rather than fact-intensive balancing, a requirement that the defendant must testify to preserve the issue for appeal might not be appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line procedural rule that resolves a circuit split, forcing defendants to make a difficult strategic choice. To preserve a challenge to a Rule 609(a) ruling, the defendant must take the stand and risk the very prejudice the motion sought to avoid. This prioritizes the need for a complete factual record for appellate review and judicial efficiency over the potential chilling effect on a defendant's right to testify. Justice Brennan's concurrence is significant because it suggests this 'must-testify' rule may not extend to pre-trial rulings on other matters, particularly those involving constitutional rights that are not fact-dependent.
Unlock the full brief for Luce v. United States