--- title: "Luce v. United States" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/luce-v-united-states --- # Luce v. United States Luce established the requirement that a defendant must testify at trial in order to preserve for appellate review a claim that the trial court erroneously ruled that a prior conviction could be used for impeachment. The decision created a practical prerequisite for challenging Rule 609 rulings on appeal, reflecting the Court's view that appellate review requires a complete record. ## Citation 469 U.S. 38 (1984) ## Year 1984 ## Court Supreme Court of the United States ## Facts Edward Luce was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Before trial, he moved to preclude the government from using his 1974 state conviction for possession of a controlled substance to impeach him if he testified. The trial court ruled that the conviction could be used for impeachment. Luce did not testify, was convicted, and appealed the in limine ruling on his prior conviction. ## Procedural History The district court denied Luce's motion in limine to exclude the prior conviction. Luce did not testify and was convicted. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Luce had to testify to preserve the issue. The Supreme Court affirmed. ## Issue Whether a defendant must actually testify at trial to preserve for appellate review a challenge to the trial court's in limine ruling that a prior conviction may be used for impeachment under Rule 609. ## Holding The Court held that to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify at trial. A defendant who does not testify cannot challenge the in limine ruling on appeal because the reviewing court has an incomplete record and cannot assess the significance of the error. ## Reasoning Chief Justice Burger, writing for a unanimous Court, identified several reasons for requiring testimony. First, the in limine ruling is subject to change as the trial unfolds, so it may not reflect the trial court's final position. Second, the reviewing court must assess the impact of the impeachment evidence in context, which requires knowing what the defendant would have said. Third, the harmless error analysis requires weighing the impeachment evidence against the defendant's testimony, which is impossible without a record. Fourth, the requirement prevents defendants from obtaining a tactical advantage by not testifying and then claiming on appeal that they would have testified but for the ruling. The Court noted that defendants who wish to preserve the issue must testify and submit to impeachment. ## Impact Luce has had a significant impact on trial strategy in criminal cases. Defense counsel must decide whether to have the defendant testify and preserve the issue for appeal or forgo testimony and waive the right to challenge the impeachment ruling. The decision has been extended by some courts to other in limine rulings beyond Rule 609 contexts. The practical effect is that many impeachment rulings are unreviewable because defendants choose not to testify. ## Key Quotes - To raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction, a defendant must testify. - Any possible harm flowing from a district court's in limine ruling permitting impeachment by a prior conviction is wholly speculative when the defendant does not testify. - We emphasize that the requirement that a defendant must testify to preserve an objection to a ruling on impeachment by prior conviction in no way compels a defendant to testify. ## Related Cases - green-v-bock-laundry - old-chief-v-united-states - huddleston-v-united-states - ohler-v-united-states ## Exam Relevance Luce is commonly tested in Evidence and Criminal Procedure courses as part of impeachment and preservation-of-error questions. Professors may present a scenario where a defendant moves in limine to exclude a prior conviction, the motion is denied, and the defendant does not testify. Students must recognize that the defendant has waived appellate review under Luce. This is also a practical trial strategy question that appears in professional responsibility and trial advocacy contexts. ## Study Tips - Know the core rule: no testimony, no preserved error for appeal. - Understand the practical dilemma for defense counsel: testify and risk impeachment to preserve the issue, or stay silent and waive the claim. - Be aware that Luce applies to motions in limine regarding prior convictions under Rule 609 but has been extended by some circuits to other in limine contexts. - Consider the strategic implications when advising a defendant on whether to testify. ## Doctrine Established Testimony Requirement for Preserving Impeachment Challenges on Appeal --- Source: [Luce v. United States — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/luce-v-united-states)