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

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

Drake (D) was charged with fraud on the basis that he sought financing while concealing the existence of a third-party security interest in the collateral. D testified that he had no formal training in business management and that he majored in psychology and the usual things that go along with that major and that he had a degree in psychology. D was impeached on that issue through the use of prior inconsistent statements and D admitted he did not have a degree but practiced clinical psychology at the University of Illinois and Roosevelt University in 1953-54. Later in the trial D was reexamined on the issue of his prior education and transfers between schools and it was learned and presented in court that D was actually dismissed from the University of Illinois and had done bad acts in relation to that dismissal. The actual trial transcript of the questioning is printed in Waltz 9th page 501. The evidence was let in, and D objected in that the evidence was not relevant and prejudicial and violated FRED 608(b) as the introduction of extrinsic evidence. D appealed.

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

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