This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Luce (P) was indicted on charges of conspiracy and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. During this trial, P moved for a ruling to preclude the use of a prior 1974 state conviction to impeach him if he testified. There was no commitment by P that he would testify if the motion were granted nor did he make an offer of proof. The District Court ruled that the conviction was permissible for impeachment purposes under Rule 609(a) depending on the nature and scope of P's testimony. P did not testify and was convicted. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District affirmed and refused to consider 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; in effect when the defendant does not testify, the court will not review the in limine ruling. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.