Whether the practice of telling juries in a 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prosecution that the defendant is a previously-convicted felon should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403

QUESTION PRESENTED Congress has prohibited nine categories of people from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). This case concerns the first of these categories, codified under subsection (g)(1)—individuals previously convicted of a felony offense (Le., “any person... who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year’’). The question presented is: Whether the practice of telling juries in a 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) prosecution that the defendant is a felon, as is routinely done under this Court’s decision in Od Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), in fact introduces evidence that is far more prejudicial than probative and should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, particularly given that less prejudicial but equally probative evidentiary alternatives are available to prove that the defendant is a person prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law? i