469 U.S. 38 (1984)
Petitioner Luce was indicted on charges of conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1).1 During his trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Luce moved for a ruling to preclude the Government from using a 1974 state conviction to impeach him if he testified.2
There was no commitment by Luce that he would testify if the motion were granted, nor did he make a proffer to the court as to what his testimony would be.3 In opposing the motion, the Government represented that the conviction was for a serious crime—possession of a controlled substance.4
The District Court ruled that the prior conviction fell within the category of permissible impeachment evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a).5 The District Court noted, however, that the nature and scope of Luce's trial testimony could affect the court's specific evidentiary rulings; for example, the court was prepared to hold that the prior conviction would be excluded if Luce limited his testimony to explaining his attempt to flee from the arresting officers, but if he took the stand and denied any prior involvement with drugs, he could then be impeached by the 1974 conviction.6 Luce did not testify, and the jury returned guilty verdicts.7
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.8 The Court of Appeals refused to consider Luce's contention that the District Court abused its discretion in denying the motion in limine without making an explicit finding that the probative value of the prior conviction outweighed its prejudicial effect.9 The Court of Appeals held that when the defendant does not testify, the court will not review the District Court's in limine ruling.10 Some other Circuits have permitted review in similar situations.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict.12
Whether a defendant who did not testify at trial is entitled to review of the District Court's ruling denying his motion to forbid the use of a prior conviction to impeach his credibility?13
To raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify.14
No. The Supreme Court requires a defendant to testify to preserve for appellate review any claim that a district court erred in denying an in limine motion to exclude prior convictions for impeachment under Rule 609(a).15 Without actual testimony, a reviewing court cannot know the precise nature of the defendant's statements on the stand, the scope of any cross-examination, or the potential impact of impeachment on the jury's verdict.16 The court likewise cannot determine whether the government would have elected to use the 1974 conviction at all or whether any erroneous admission would have been harmless in light of the full record.17
Luce was not entitled to appellate review of the District Court's in limine ruling because he did not testify at trial.18
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan joined the opinion of the Court because he understood the holding to apply only to in limine rulings under Rule 609(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.19 The Court correctly identified the reasons for precluding appellate review unless the defendant testifies at trial.20 These reasons include the need for a specific factual context to evaluate the weighing of probative value and prejudicial effect.21
The reviewing court is also handicapped in making the required harmless-error determination if the defendant declines to testify.22 However, Justice Brennan clarified that the decision does not address broader questions of appealability of in limine rulings that do not involve Rule 609(a).23 In particular, the decision does not determine whether a defendant must testify to preserve an issue concerning the constitutionality of admitting immunized testimony for impeachment purposes.24