CREDIBILITY AND IMPEACHMENT

Question 1

PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATMENT

Answer 1

CA offers that if the W is now under oath and previously made an inconsistent statement, whetehr or not that statmeent was under oath, it is not hearsay and it is admissible for all purposes

Question 2

impeachment with prior convictions

Answer 2

CA - all felonies involving moral turpitude are admissible but court must balance. Felonies without moral turpitude are not admissible

moral turpitude (lying, vio, theft, reckless, sex)

compare to fed which i fit’s a crime for lying, there’s no balancing of unfair prejudice. For fed, with other convictions not involving lying, you must balance

Question 3

prior misdemeanor convictions

Answer 3

Fed - all misdemeanors involving F statement are admissible (no balancing)

CA - prop 8 misdemeanors can be admitted in criminal case if involving moral turpitude, subjec tot balacing probative value vs. unfair prejudice.

CA civil cases not allowe din

Prop 8 only applis to criminal case

Question 4

conviction and extrinsic evidence

Answer 4

F - if more than 10 years old, (even if admissible) you lose admisibility (after balancing)

CA - no such rules but may balance

Question 5

impeachment with non-conviction misconduct evidence bearing on truthfulness

Answer 5

F - admissible in civl and crim subject to balancing. Must be an act of lying. extrinsic evidence inadmissible (e.g. you can aks if they lied on something, but if they said no, you can do no more)

CA - inadmisssible under CEC but Prop 8 makes it admissiblein crim cases if relvant. To be relevant must be an act of moral turpitude (lying, violence, theft, extreme recklessness or sex misconduct. both cross and extrinsic evidnec permitted subject to balancing (e.g. CA - in civ case canNOT ask about lying unless led to conviction. in crim case prop 8 makes all relevant acts admissible, so if it is an act of lying (or moral turpitude) it’s admissible subject to balacning)

E.G. Fed can ask about acts of lying (lying on driver’s license application) for civ and crim. CA inadmissible in civ because never led to conviction

Question 6

non-conviction essay type answer

Answer 6

F - The only type of misconduct that is admissible to impeach a witness is acts of lying

CA - there is no method of impecahment for non-conviction misconduct. But in a crim case, prop 8 applies. Any act tha tinvolves moral turpitude (lying, vio, reckless, etc) is admissible subject to balancing. If ti’s a similar crime, the jury coudl draw an unfair prjeudice when balancing.