Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. However, evidence of a conviction more than ten years old as calculated herein is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence. Pa.R.E. 609(a)(b) (emphasis supplied). ¶ 7 The language of the rule is clear — there is no distinction drawn between a witness who is not a defendant and a witness who is a defendant. In fact, our Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant can be impeached with his or her own prior convictions. See Commonwealth v. Randall, 515 Pa. 410, 528 A.2d 1326 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, neither Pa.R.E. 609 nor case law 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility (B) holding that a conviction for an offense involving dishonesty or false statement may be used to impeach the credibility of a defendant who chooses to testify (C) holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her (D) holding that summary convictions of crimes involving dishonesty could be used to impeach the credibility of a witness (E) holding that a defendant who chooses to testify in his or her own defense may not conceal contradictory statements obtained in violation of the fifth amendment from the jury
Output (English): holding that a witnesss prior inconsistent statement to an officer could be used to impeach her