🦅
Federal Evidence • Witness Impeachment
EVID#090
Legal Definition
A witness may be impeached by prior bad acts involving untruthfulness in questions on cross-examination, however, extrinsic evidence cannot be used.
Plain English Explanation
If a lawyer wants to suggest that a witness might not be reliable or trustworthy, they can use the witness's past actions that involved lying or dishonesty. This is like asking the witness about times they may have lied or cheated in the past to show that they might be lying now.
However, there's a limit. The lawyer can't bring in other people or evidence (like emails or texts) to prove these past actions; they can only ask the witness about them. Also, the judge has to make sure this approach is fair. They'll weigh the importance of this information in understanding the case against the possibility that it might unfairly sway the jury or harm the witness's reputation.
This rule is there to prevent turning the trial into a digging-up-dirt contest and to keep the focus on the facts of the current case.
However, there's a limit. The lawyer can't bring in other people or evidence (like emails or texts) to prove these past actions; they can only ask the witness about them. Also, the judge has to make sure this approach is fair. They'll weigh the importance of this information in understanding the case against the possibility that it might unfairly sway the jury or harm the witness's reputation.
This rule is there to prevent turning the trial into a digging-up-dirt contest and to keep the focus on the facts of the current case.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is testifying in court against Sam, claiming Sam damaged his car. During cross-examination, Sam's lawyer asks Bob about a time when he lied to his insurance company. Result: This is allowed because the lawyer is questioning Bob's honesty.
Hypo 2: In a trial, Bob accuses Sam of stealing from him. While testifying, Bob's history of making fraudulent insurance claims is brought up. Result: The questioning about Bob's past fraud is relevant to his credibility, but no external proof, like past legal records, can be introduced.
Hypo 2: Bob is being sued by Sam. In court, Bob’s lawyer asks Sam about a previous violent incident to imply Sam is aggressive. Result: This is not allowed because the past act isn't about dishonesty or untruthfulness. It's an irrelevant character attack and doesn't follow the rule.
Hypo 2: In a trial, Bob accuses Sam of stealing from him. While testifying, Bob's history of making fraudulent insurance claims is brought up. Result: The questioning about Bob's past fraud is relevant to his credibility, but no external proof, like past legal records, can be introduced.
Hypo 2: Bob is being sued by Sam. In court, Bob’s lawyer asks Sam about a previous violent incident to imply Sam is aggressive. Result: This is not allowed because the past act isn't about dishonesty or untruthfulness. It's an irrelevant character attack and doesn't follow the rule.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
How may a witness be <impeached>?
In California, how may a witness be impeached?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to evidence of character for untruthfulness?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence under Proposition 8?
