Did the New Jersey state court endorse the use of N.J.R.E. 806 to impeach non-testifying criminal defendants with their prior convictions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , : 1. DID THE NEW JERSEY STATE COURT ENDORSE THE USE OF N.J.R.E. 806 AS A VEHICLE FOR IMPEACHING NON-TESTIFYING CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS WITH THEIR PRIOR CONVICTIONS RISE TO THE LEVEL MAKING THIS CASE OF SUCH IMPERATIVE PUBLIC IMPORTANCE AS TO REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DETERMINATION IN THIS COURT? 2. DID THE DEFENSE’S INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THE STATE’S CHIEF WITNESS’S MISLEADING TESTIMONY EQUIVALENT TO THE DEFENDANT TAKING THE STAND UNDER OATH ALLOWING THE STATE INTRODUCTION OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTION FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES? 3. SHOULD A NON-TESTIFYING DEFENDANT BE FORCED TO SACRIFICE AND CHOOSE BETWEEN FORGOING A DEFENSE TO NOT CORRECTING MISLEADING TESTIMONY FROM THE STATE WITNESS AND EXPOSING HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS TO THE JURY? 4. DID THE TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY TO USE PETITIONER’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS TO ASSESS “THE DEFENSE’S CASE” CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL? , 5. WILL THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S PUBLISHED OPINION ENCOURAGE TRIAL COURTS THROUGHOUT NEW JERSEY AND OTHER STATES TO USE CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS PRIOR CONVICTIONS TO ASSESS IN DETERMINING THE CREDIBILITY OR BELIEVABILITY OF A DEFENDANT’S CASE WHEN EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO CONTRADICT A STATE’S WITNESS’S TESTIMONY THAT WAS CRUCIALLY MISLEADING? 6. DID THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED THE STATE TO PROFFER DEFENDANT'S PRIOR CONVICTIONS TO IMPEACH HIS CREDIBILITY BECAUSE BY PLAYING THE 9-1-1 TAPE TO THE JURY, DEFENDANT AVOIDED THE RISKIER PROCESS OF TESTIFYING, THUS, THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS MAY HAVE AFFECTED THE JURY'S ASSESSMENT OF HIS CREDIBILITY BUT DID NOT OUTWEIGH THE PROBATIVE WORTH OF THE EVIDENCE? 1 4 ) . 1