We don’t have this come up too often because of the nature of our clients.
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984), held that if a trial court determines that the prosecution will be able to impeach a defendant through his prior convictions under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a) in the event that he testifies at trial, the defendant only preserves that issue for appeal if he testifies at trial.
On a different point entirely, don’t rely on old westerns like “High Noon” as a substitute for expert testimony on a relevant point. (h/t federalevidence.com)
In private security contractor’s negligence suit for injuries suffered in Afghanistan, allegedly as a result of the defendant transit service’s negligence in providing security measures, summary judgment for defendant was appropriate when the plaintiff could not provide, as required by "state" law, an expert witness to testify on the expected standard of care applicable to the case, in Burke v. Air Serv Intern., Inc. __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir. July 13, 2012)