The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Breitkreutz, 8 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 1993):
Indeed, we recently noted that if proof of the underlying conviction in a section 922(g)(1) action were excluded, it would "change the nature of the crime charged." United States v. Barker, 1 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir.1993). In Barker, we held the district court could not bifurcate the single offense of being a felon in possession into separate proceedings for felony status and possession because "[p]roof of the felony conviction is essential to the proof of the offense." Id. at 959 n. 3. 4
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.