overwhelming weight of authority supports this conclusion and suggests that, while it may be proper to limit, under Rule 609(a)(1), evidence of the underlying facts or details of a crime of which a witness was convicted, inquiry into the “essential facts” of the conviction, including the nature or statutory name of each offense, its date, and the sentence imposed is presumptively required by the Rule, subject to balancing under Rule 403. See United States v. Howell, 285 F.3d 1263, 1267-68 (10th Cir.2002) (finding that evidence of the number and nature of felony offenses is ordinarily required under Rule 609(a)(1) because a witness’s convictions bear to differing degrees on credibility depending on these characteristics); United States v. Burston, 159 F.3d 1328, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>); Campbell v. Greer, 831 F.2d 700, 707 (7th
holding that where defendant stipulates to prior felony conviction evidence of the nature of the prior crime is irrelevant and should be excluded holding that prior convictions for simple possession were not similar to the importation of marijuana and thus lack probative value holding that defendants prior felony convictions in georgia state court for drugrelated conspiracy and simple possession qualified as predicate prior felony drug offenses for  841b1a because under the plain language of the statute  felony drug offense includes any criminal conduct relating to narcotics including simple possession which a state has proscribed as a felony holding that the probative value of prior felony convictions varies with their nature and number holding that the state had the burden of proving the defendants two prior convictions in order to obtain the felony dui conviction