Read the article about Baez in the first post. He's a prize, that one.
The thing about check fraud is that during the deposition in that case, Casey said some things, unrelated to the crime of check fraud itself, in response to Baez's questions, that the prosecution wants let in as evidence. The defense doesn't want it let in because then they have to say that she's been convicted of these crimes, even tho the judge would say to the jury not to consider that fact (the check fraud crimes) because those crimes are unrelated to this case. I think!