yes, the state will attempt to establish that they can bring in prior bad acts. Judge will be the ultimate decider at a 609 hearing but Lori runs a very real risk if she chooses to testify. That said, Lori is no attorney, she just plays one at her trials, and the only thing bright about her is her chosen hair color so I fully believe she is just dumb enough to testify.
(a) In General. For the purpose of attacking a witness’s character for truthfulness, evidence of the fact that the witness has been convicted of a felony and the nature of the felony must be admitted if elicited from the witness or established by public record, but
only if the court determines in a hearing outside the presence of the jury that the fact of the prior conviction or the nature of the prior conviction, or both, are relevant to the witness’s character for truthfulness and that the probative value of this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the party offering the witness. If the evidence of the fact of a prior felony conviction, but not the nature of the conviction, is admitted for impeachment of a party to the action or proceeding, the party has the option to present evidence of the nature of the conviction, but evidence of the circumstances of the conviction is not admissible.
I.R.E. 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime. | Supreme Court
I feel the nature of her prior convictions directly relates to her credibility. But I worry the court will feel those convictions are way too prejudicial to share with the jury in this case.
