In the case of Johnny Lynn Old Chief v. United States, 1996, Old Chief was charged with assault and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He sought to stipulate his prior felony conviction in order to prevent the prosecution from introducing potentially prejudicial evidence about his criminal history during trial. The District Court denied this request and allowed the government to present its full proof, including details about Old Chief's previous crime which involved an armed assault on a police officer. This decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, when appealed further, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Old Chief (5-4). It held that under Rule 403 of Federal Rules Evidence - which allows exclusion if probative value is substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice - once defendant offers unambiguous admission for prior conviction element in felon-in-possession charge, prosecutor may not introduce evidence regarding nature or detail specifics about past crimes unless such information has unique relevance beyond proving fact already admitted.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnny Lynn Old Chief v. United States, Justice O'Connor disagreed with the majority's decision to allow defendants to admit their felony status without revealing the nature of their prior convictions in cases involving firearm possession by a felon. She argued that this ruling unnecessarily restricted prosecutors' ability to present compelling evidence and tell a coherent story at trial. According to her, jurors should be trusted with all relevant information about a defendant's criminal history, as they are capable of following instructions not to use such information prejudicially against the defendant. Furthermore, she contended that allowing defendants to control what parts of their past can be revealed could lead them into manipulating trials unfairly in their favor.