In the 1984 case Luce v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must testify in order to raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior conviction. The appellant, Robert Luce, was convicted on charges related to drug trafficking after his motion to prohibit use of prior convictions for possible impeachment was denied by trial court. On appeal, he argued that this denial constituted reversible error but did not testify at his own trial due to fear of being impeached by these previous convictions. The Supreme Court held that since Luce chose not to testify in his defense at trial, there was no way for an appellate court to determine whether admitting evidence about past crimes would have been harmful or harmless error because it is impossible know what impact such testimony might have had on the jury's decision-making process.

In the dissenting opinion for Luce v. United States, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision that a defendant must testify in order to preserve an objection to a ruling on impeachment by prior conviction. He argued that this requirement was inconsistent with Federal Rule of Evidence 103 and would lead to unnecessary perjury trials. Furthermore, he believed it placed undue pressure on defendants who might otherwise choose not to testify due to fear of being impeached by their criminal record. This could potentially infringe upon their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as they may feel compelled to testify just so they can challenge any adverse rulings later on appeal. Justice Brennan also pointed out that there were other ways for appellate courts to assess whether error had occurred without requiring defendants' testimony, such as examining trial transcripts or conducting harmless-error analysis.