## Facts

- Maria Suzuki Ohler drove a van from Mexico into the United States at the San Ysidro Port of Entry; inspectors found about 81 pounds of marijuana hidden behind a tampered interior panel.
- Ohler was charged in federal court with importation of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute.
- Before trial, the government sought to admit Ohler’s 1993 felony conviction for methamphetamine possession, including for impeachment under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1).
- The district court ruled the conviction could be used to impeach Ohler if she testified.
- Ohler testified, denied knowledge of the marijuana, and on direct examination disclosed the 1993 conviction to lessen its impact.
- The jury convicted her on both counts; she received a prison sentence and supervised release.
- The court of appeals held Ohler waived any challenge to the in limine ruling by introducing the conviction herself.

## Issues

1. Whether a criminal defendant who, after an adverse in limine ruling permitting impeachment by prior conviction under Rule 609(a)(1), introduces the conviction on direct examination may later challenge that ruling on appeal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- A defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not claim on appeal that admitting the conviction was error.
- By offering the conviction herself, Ohler waived appellate review of the in limine ruling.
- The Court rejected the argument that this waiver rule unconstitutionally burdens the defendant’s right to testify.

## Legal Principles

- Generally, a party who introduces evidence at trial cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted.
- Federal Rules of Evidence 103 and 609 do not preserve appellate review when the party voluntarily offers the disputed evidence at trial.
- Strategic trial choices about whether and how to present impeachment evidence can carry forfeiture consequences for appellate review, even after an adverse in limine ruling.

## Conclusion

Because Ohler disclosed her prior felony conviction on direct examination after the trial court ruled it admissible for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(1), she waived any appellate challenge to that evidentiary ruling, and her conviction was affirmed.


Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (2000)