— the centrality of the credibility issue and the impeachment value of the prior crimes. See, e.g., Gomez, at 653-54; Jones, 101 Wn.2d at 118-22. Second, the trial court failed to balance the obvious prejudice associated with the admission of two additional felony convictions against their probative value. As to the omitted factors, not only are they important, but they can weigh for or against admission depending on how they are analyzed. For example, although credibility was concededly central to this case, it is unclear whether the convictions would have been admitted had this factor been considered. See Gomez, at 653-54. In Gomez, we compared decisions analyzing this factor as weighing both for and against admission of prior convictions. Compare, e.g., Alexis, 95 Wn.2d at 19 (<HOLDING>) with Jones, 101 Wn.2d at 120 (recognizing that
holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony recognizing that admission is important to the evaluation of witness credibility holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness recognizing that assessing witness credibility is uniquely the function of the trier of fact holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness