with intent to deliver. The District Court excluded Gaston’s conviction for possession of a firearm without a license but admitted all three of Gaston’s drug-related convictions. The District Court limited the government to asking about “the fact of the conviction and the date of the conviction.” In response to this ruling, Gaston requested that the court admit only one of the three drug convictions for impeachment. The District Court denied the request, holding that the convictions were relevant to Ga-ston’s credibility. On direct examination, Gaston preemptively admitted to one of the felony drug crimes. Gaston concedes that he has waived the right to object to the introduction of this crime. See Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 760, 120 S.Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826 (2000) (<HOLDING>). The parties dispute which of the three drug
holding that the trial courts error in not allowing defendant to testify on direct examination as to nature and circumstances of prior convictions was not harmless error where credibility of the defendant was critical to the deliberations of the jury holding that a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered