Is it unduly prejudicial for a jury to be exposed to the toxic evidence that the defendant is a convicted felon before even determining whether the defendant was, in fact, in possession of the firearm at issue?

QUESTION PRESENTED No one can legitimately deny that a felony conviction is exceedingly prejudicial. That is why evidence of a felony conviction is normally admissible only if it is relevant to a fact at issue, and then only if the probative value is not outweighed by the prejudicial effect. But in a prosecution for being a “felon in possession of a firearm,” the government is allowed to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior felony conviction before the jury even makes a determination that the defendant was, in fact, in possession of the firearm at issue. The Question Presented is: Is it unduly prejudicial for a jury to be exposed to the toxic evidence that the defendant is a convicted felon before even determining whether the defendant was, in fact, in possession of the firearm at issue? Stated differently, should the trial of a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm be bifurcated into two phases?