Cited by

“[A] prior conviction can have impeachment value by helping the jury see the ‘whole person’ of the defendant and better evaluate his or her truthfulness.” Swanson, d at 655 (-67 (Minn. 1993))

(stating that jury instructions are conceptually different from tests for the sufficiency of evidence).

(citing Ihnot, d at 587) (stating that the fourth and fifth factors of the Jones analysis are satisfied if the defendant’s credibility is a central issue in the case), d 62, 67 (Minn. 1993) (stating that the importance-of-defendant’s-testimony factor supports exclusion of impeachment evidence if, by admitting it, a defendant’s account of the events would not be heard by the jury).

The objective standard of reasonableness is defined as “ ‘representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar cir *267 cumstances.’ ” (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).

Under the first prong of the Strickland test, counsel’s performance is objectively *745 reasonable if he or she exercises “‘the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.’” Reed, d at 733 ().

“[T]he fact that a prior conviction did not directly involve truth or falsity does not mean it has no impeachment value.”

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

See, -67 (Minn.1993); -47 (Minn.1984).

(upholding admission of pri- or convictions under rule 609(a)(1) even though district court did not specify which part of rule 609(a) applied); review denied (Minn. Aug.

The objective reasonableness prong has been described as “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.”

Counsel acts within that objective standard of reasonableness when the attorney provides the client with the “representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(stating that if the admission of prior convictions prevents a jury from hearing a defendant’s version of events, this weighs against admission of prior convictions).

The objective standard is defined as “ ‘representation by an attorney exercising the customary skills and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances.’” (quoting White v. State, 309 Minn. 476, 481 , ).

But “a remark by a prosecutor on the lack of evidence regarding the defense’s theory [does] not shift the burden of proof to the defense.” ().

The mere fact that a trial court would allow impeachment evidence if a defendant chooses to testify does not necessarily implicate his constitutional right to testify in his own defense.”

The court found that the impeachment value of the crimes was strong because the crimes were recent, were within a short time of one another, and would “assist the jury in getting a picture of the whole person.” We have stated that prior crimes are important to the jury’s judgment of a witness’s credibility, because it can then see the “whole person.”