Ohler v. United States
146 L. Ed. 2d 826, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3429, 120 S. Ct. 1851 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination, following an unfavorable in limine ruling, waives the right to appeal that evidentiary ruling.
Facts:
- In July 1997, Maria Ohler drove a van from Mexico into California through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.
- A customs inspector noticed a tampered interior panel in the van.
- Upon searching the van, inspectors discovered and seized approximately 81 pounds of marijuana.
- Ohler was subsequently arrested.
- At her trial, Ohler testified in her own defense, denying any knowledge of the marijuana.
- During her direct examination, Ohler's counsel elicited testimony from her admitting she had a 1993 felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
Procedural Posture:
- The Government charged Maria Ohler with importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute in the United States District Court.
- The Government filed a motion in limine to admit evidence of Ohler's prior felony conviction for impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1).
- The District Court (trial court) granted the Government's motion.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Ohler on both counts.
- Ohler, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the District Court's in limine ruling.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the conviction, holding that Ohler waived her objection by introducing the evidence herself.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split.
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 defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination waive the right to appeal the district court's in limine ruling that the evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes, a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination waives the right to appeal the admissibility of that evidence. The Court reasoned that a party who introduces evidence generally cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted. The defendant makes a voluntary, strategic choice to introduce the conviction to 'remove the sting' and must accept the consequences of that choice. Allowing the defendant to introduce the evidence and still preserve the issue for appeal would be unfair to the prosecution, which must also make tactical choices and might not have introduced the conviction at all. Citing Luce v. United States, the court noted that any potential harm from an in limine ruling is speculative until the prosecution actually seeks to introduce the evidence, and by preempting this, the defendant creates the very situation they wish to appeal.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No, a defendant does not waive their right to appeal by preemptively introducing a prior conviction after an adverse in limine ruling. The dissent argued that the majority misapplies the general waiver rule, which is not intended for situations where a party introduces evidence defensively to mitigate prejudice from a ruling already made. Unlike the defendant in Luce v. United States who never testified, Ohler did testify, so the harm from the court's ruling is not speculative and is reviewable on the record. Forcing a defendant to wait for the prosecution to introduce the conviction on cross-examination creates a risk that the jury will wrongly infer the defendant was trying to conceal it, which undermines the search for truth. Allowing preemptive disclosure serves the purpose of Rule 609 without unfairly prejudicing the defendant.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line waiver rule in federal evidence law, resolving a circuit split on the issue. It forces criminal defendants to make a significant tactical decision: either preemptively introduce a prior conviction to mitigate its prejudicial impact and thereby forfeit appellate review, or remain silent and risk the jury drawing a negative inference of concealment if the prosecution introduces it on cross-examination. This holding solidifies the principle that parties must often bear the strategic consequences of their trial decisions, even when those decisions are made in the shadow of an adverse pre-trial ruling. The ruling simplifies the appellate process by preventing appeals based on speculative harm, but it places defendants with prior convictions in a difficult strategic bind.
