Under what condition is a conviction from over 10 years ago admissible?

The admissibility of a conviction that is over 10 years old is primarily determined by weighing its probative value against its prejudicial effect. Courts generally allow such older convictions if they find that the relevance and potential to contribute to the truth-seeking process significantly outweigh the risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.

This balancing test is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, as the law aims to exclude evidence that could unduly sway the jury against a party based on past behavior rather than the facts of the current case. An older conviction may still provide important insights into a party's character or credibility, especially if it is directly relevant to the issues in the current matter at hand.

The other options touch on factors that do not intrinsically meet the criteria for admissibility. For instance, while relevance is essential for all evidence, it alone does not address the specific balance required when dealing with older convictions. Similarly, while a defendant's agreement to admit evidence may affect strategy, it does not influence the court's assessment of probative versus prejudicial impact. Lastly, the presence of exculpatory evidence doesn't automatically justify the admission of an old conviction, as that is dealt with separately in the context of assessing overall evidence. Thus