This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Altobello (P) sued D for age discrimination. During the trial, there was merely a back and forth exchange based D claiming that P was a malingerer and P claiming that that characterization was merely a pretext of getting rid of him because of his age. During the trial, D offered evidence of P's prior conviction of tampering with electric meters of Commonwealth Edison (ten years before the trial). This was a misdemeanor conviction and was admissible under Rule 609(a)(2). P argued for exclusion because the prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value (but Rule 403 was subsequently determined not to apply to Rule 609(a)(2). P lost the verdict and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.