Cited by

“[I]m-peachment by prior crime aids the jury by allowing it to see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of his testimony.” (quotations omitted).

Instead, it considered the fourth and fifth factors together and reasoned that “if [Robbins] decides to testify and offers testimony that conflicts with the State’s witnesses, her credibility would certainly be central to her case.” See Swanson , d at 655 (analyzing the fourth and fifth Jones factors together); State v. Gassler , (considering the fourth and fifth Jones factors simultaneously).

-67 (Minn. 1993) (stating that “impeachment by prior crime aids the jury by allowing it to see the whole person and thus to judge better the truth of his testimony”) (quotation omitted)).

see also State v. Williams , (stating that, because the convictions occurred within the past ten years, the second Jones factor “weigh[ed] in favor of admission”), aff’d

In Minnesota, an attorney acts competently when one demonstrates “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

This knowledge enables the fact-finder to more accurately judge “the truth of [the witness’s] testimony.”

(applying Minn. R. Evid.

The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as the representation an “attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

Minnesota courts define the objective standard as “representation by an 10 attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

See Swanson, d at 655 (grouping the fourth and fifth Jones factors together); (same).

See Swanson, d at 655–56 (evaluating fourth and fifth Jones factors together); (same).

Generally, a defendant must “accept the attorney appointed by the court.”

The similarity between Daher’s prior theft convictions and the aiding-and-abetting-theft charge created a “heightened danger that the jury [would] use the evidence not only for impeachment purposes, but also 9 substantively.”

(stating that “it is only when a [district] court has abused its discretion under Rule 609 .

Representation is objectively reasonable when counsel “exercis[es] the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.”

(“[I]t is only when a trial court has abused its discretion under Rule 609(a)(2) that a defendant’s right to testify may be infringed by the threat of impeachment evidence.”).

(“[T]he fact that a prior conviction did not directly involve truth or falsity does not mean it has no impeachment value.”); see also Swanson, d at 655 (affirming a district court’s decision to permit impeachment with evidence of defendant’s prior conviction for motor-vehicle theft, among