Cited by

But the district court reasoned that the conviction is “not stale due to the subsequent history that Mr. Johnson has.” The district court’s reasoning is sound because “even an older conviction can remain probative if later convictions demonstrate a history of lawlessness.” Swanson, d at 655 (quotation omitted); (eight-year-old conviction had not lost any relevance because two subsequent convictions showed a “pattern of lawlessness”).

for admitting the impeachment evidence because the need for the evidence is greater.” (quotation omitted).

see Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51-53 , 107 S.Ct.

*651 We will not reverse a district court’s ruling on the impeachment of a witness by prior conviction “absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

2704, 2708-09 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987); ).

(5) Centrality of credibility issue Finally, if a defendant’s credibility is central to the determination of the case, “a greater case can be made for admitting the impeachment evidence, because the need for the evidence is greater.” (quotation omitted).

Jones, d at 537-38 ; (“Although Jones was decided before Rule 609 became effective, we conclude that these factors remain suitable and we reaffirm their application in determining whether the probative value outweighs the prejudice under the rule.”).

“The defendant’s right to testify-in his or her own defense is protected by both the [Fourteenth] Amendment Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution and Minnesota state law.”

(holding that fourth and fifth Jones factors were satisfied where the defendant’s credibility would have been a central issue in the case).

2704 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987)