Walter, who is thirty years old, was convicted of felony mail fraud eight years ago, but was pardoned by the governor three years later. Walter has had a clean record ever since, with the exception of a misdemeanor for disorderly conduct. Subsequently, one of Walter's former associates, Adele, was also charged with mail fraud, and the prosecutor called Walter as a witness. At trial, Adele's attorney attempted to introduce evidence of Walter's former crime to impeach him, and the prosecuting attorney objected. Most likely, the objection will be: Group of answer choices Sustained; a crime committed eight years ago is too distant to have any substantial probative value, therefore the prejudicial effect will significantly outweigh it and make the evidence inadmissible under Rule 403. Sustained; the witness has received a pardon and, under Rule 609(c) and the circumstances of this question, evidence of that conviction is inadmissible. Overruled; the crime in question is a felony involving dishonesty, therefore under Rule 609(a)(2) it is admissible regardless of the Rule 403 balancing test. Overruled; because the witness has been convicted of a subsequent crime the pardon does not preclude the possibility of impeaching the witness with this evidence