The U.S. Supreme Court case Maria Suzuki Ohler v. United States in 1999 revolved around the issue of whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a district court's decision on the admissibility of prior conviction evidence if she introduces that evidence herself at trial to preempt its use by the prosecution. The petitioner, Maria Suzuki Ohler, was charged with drug offenses and had previously been convicted for similar charges. She sought to prevent this past conviction from being used against her during cross-examination but was denied by the lower courts. In response, she introduced this information herself during direct examination hoping it would lessen its impact while preserving her right to appeal on this issue later. However, in an unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court held that defendants cannot introduce such evidence themselves and then later challenge its admission on appeal because they effectively waive their rights when they introduce it voluntarily as part of their strategy.

In the dissenting opinion for Maria Suzuki Ohler v. United States, Justice Thomas argued that the majority's decision was not based on any established rule or precedent and instead seemed to be more of a policy judgment. He contended that there is no rule in federal law preventing defendants from preemptively introducing evidence of their own prior convictions before the prosecution has a chance to do so. Furthermore, he pointed out that many courts allow such strategic moves as they can help build credibility with juries by showing honesty about past mistakes. The majority's ruling, according to him, could potentially limit defense strategies and undermine fairness in trials by forcing defendants into an all-or-nothing choice regarding impeachment by prior conviction: either completely avoid testifying or testify without being able to mitigate potential damage caused by revelation of previous crimes.