Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Evidence
469 U.S. 38 (1984)
Updated
Evidencepreserving 609 objectionsRule 609(a)impeachment by prior convictionmotion in liminepreservation of errorappellate reviewharmless error
Facts
Petitioner was tried on federal cocaine conspiracy and possession-with-intent-to-distribute charges. Before testifying, he moved to prevent the Government from using a 1974 state conviction to impeach him under Rule 609(a), but he neither committed to testify if the motion were granted nor proffered what his testimony would be. The District Court ruled the conviction fell within permissible impeachment evidence under Rule 609(a), while noting that the actual nature and scope of his testimony could affect the final ruling. Petitioner did not testify, and the jury convicted him.
Issue
May a defendant who does not testify at trial obtain appellate review of a district court's in limine ruling permitting impeachment by a prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)?
Rule
To raise and preserve for review a claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a), a defendant must testify at trial.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a federal fraud trial in Chicago, Daniel Moreno moved in limine to exclude a 9-year-old felony conviction that the prosecutor intended to use under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) if he testified. The judge ruled preliminarily that the conviction could likely be used, but Daniel chose not to take the stand and was convicted.
On appeal, Daniel argues that the trial judge misapplied Rule 609(a)'s balancing test. How should the appellate court rule?
Explanation. A defendant must testify to preserve for appellate review a claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction under Rule 609(a). Without actual testimony, the reviewing court lacks the concrete factual context needed to assess the balancing, cannot know whether the ruling would have remained the same at trial, and cannot conduct harmless-error review.