Impeachment (607-610, 613)

Question 1

T/F: Extrinsice evidence of a prior inconsistent statement of a witness who has since left the stand may be introduced even if the declarant of the prior statement has not first been given an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement/

Answer 1

1. false

• if you’re going to do this, you have to give the other side notice
• sequence of a 613 impeachment:
  
  1. ask (make sure you’ve asked all of your question)
  2. commit (“are you denying this statement”)
  3. confront (can I approach to impeach the person while they’re on the stand?)
• if you impeach on the stand, you can ambush and impeach W
• do not have to give them an opportunity to explain on the stand
• everyone always gets a redirct
  
  • sequence: direct, cross, redirect
• ex. you ask question, and you know W said something different to another W. You want to impeach the W with the inconsistant statement
• can only introduce extrinsic evidence if it is material under 613
  
  • collateral evidence rule applies
    
    • if they made a statement on direct, you can ask about a prior inconsistent statement at any time b/c it’s a proper form of impeachment
    • can’t ask extrinsice evidence unless it is material to the facts of the case
  • one of the most common forms of impeachment
  • can only introduce extrinsic evidence when W is off the stand if you give notice to the other side
  • pg. 26 of the foundation outline

Question 2

T/F: Evidence that a person has previously made a statement consistant with her trial testimony is admissible to corroborate her trial testimony without any foundation than establishing a consistency.

Answer 2

• false
• voucher rule = you can’t vouch for a W until they have been attacked
• prior consistant statement will rearely come in on direct b/c you can’t corroborate until you’ve been impeached (voucher rule)
• difficult to get a prior consistent statement in
  
  • can only come in on redirct
• pg. 27 of the foundational outline
• this is the opposite of impeachment
• will be triggered by impeachment
  
  • **can’t corroborate unless you impeach (voucher rule)

Question 3

T/F: If more than 10 years has elapsed since a witness’ conviction of a crime or his release from confinement for that conviction, whichever is later, it would be error for the trial court to admit the prior conviction to impeach the witness’s credibility.

Answer 3

• false b/c they can still admit it but they have to go through an analysis to get it in
• can get in a conviction if older than 10 years if probative value
• rule 609 is a 104(a) issue for the judge
• on exam: this is discretionary issue for the judge to decide whether older than 10 years will come in
• 609 has a soft 10 year rule - can be trumped by the court if you give them notice and argue that is probative
• 10 years = determined by the most recent event (like when you get out of jail)

Question 4

T/F: P sues D for negligence arising out of an auto accident. D offers the testimony of X, an insurance investigator who interviewed P after the accident. After X’s testimony, P asks X if he is employed by D’s insurance company. If X says “no”, P may introduce extrinsic evidence of X’s employemnt by D’s inurance company.

Answer 4

• true b/c it will go to the bias of W and bias is important
• there is also the 411 rule, a way insurance can come in
• this is bias/impartiality impeachment coming from CL
• is not subject to the collateral evidence rule b/c bias is so intrinsic to the credbility of the witness
• if they deny it, should be able to introduce
• bias questions are common
• credibility is always relevant (see the 5 categories)
  
  • if it’s on the list, you can ask about it on cross
    
    • b/c credibility is always relevant

Question 5

T/F: Evidence of a previous felony conviction is relevant for credibility purposes and can be used to impeach the credibility of the witness, but only if the felony is a crimen falsi, or, in other words, a crime of dishonesty.

Answer 5

• false
• b/c under 609, a felony is a crime that is punishable by more than 1 year. If misdemeanor, it only comes in if it is a crimen falsi
• robbery is not a crimen falsi
• test for crimen falsi = does one of the elements of the offense involve an act of dishonesty
  
  • if yes, then even if misdemeanor, it comes in under 609
• if felony conviction is for a crimen falsi felony, most courts will let it in for bias even if it is older than 10 years
• the close it is to crimen falsi, the more likely the court is going to let it in
• pg. 517

Question 6

T/F: S v. D for armed robbery. W testifies for D. The trial judge has discretion to allow S to ask W if she was recently suspended from college for falsifying a financial aid form.

Answer 6

• true under 608(b)
• yes, can ask the question
• if they deny the answer, you cannot introduce extrinsic evidence b/c the collateral evidence rule applies
• pg. 24 of foundation outline

Question 7

T/F: S v. D. for armed robbery. W testifies for D. The trial judge has discretion to allow S to ask W if she was recently suspended from college for falsifying a financial aid form. If W denies that she was recently suspended from college for falsifying financial aid forms, the state may introduce, even over an objection, a properly authenticated copy of the suspension records to rebut the denial.

Answer 7

• false
• b/c the collateral evdience rule applies to 608

Question 8

S v. D. If W testifies for D and denies on cross examination that he (W) regularly dates D’s sister, the state may introduce over objection, testimony by Y, W’s roomate, that W does in fact regularly date D’s sister.

Answer 8

• true
• b/c it goes to bias
• there is some interest b/t the relationship

Question 9

T/F: Where a witness has been impeached by the introduction of a prior inconsistent statement, the witness may always be rehabilitated by the introduction of a prior consistent statement.

Answer 9

• false

Question 10

T/F: Plaintiff in an intersection collision case calls W-1, who surprises plaintiff’s counsel by testifying that the plaintiff ran through the red light. Even though Plaintiff is unhappy with this testimony, Plaintiff cannot call W-2 to testify that he saw the plaintiff wait until the light was green b/c this would violate the rule against introducing extinsice vidence on a collateral contradiction.

Answer 10

• false
• is not a collateral issue

Question 11

T/F: A witness’s religion cannot be questioned on cross exaimination under rule 610, even if his church has a financial interest in the outcome of the case.

Answer 11

• false
• general rule: religion is not relevant to credibility (it used to be under CL)
• exception:
  
  • Abe; - US SC case
    
    • Aryan brotherhood case
    • prison gang swore oaths to lie, steal, cheat, and kill for eachother
    • SC: you can bring up religion b/c it goes to bias
    • 610 says you can’t bring up the fact that a person is a member of a religion but you can bring it up if it is central to the W’s credibility
    • pg. 525 of text, 25 outline
• this type of issue is factually dependent
• generally religion doesn’t come in
• Abel - if you can establish that there is a bias purpose - then it can come in

Question 12

On cross-examination of Vic, an eye witness to an accident testifying for the plaintiff, Defendant’s attorney asked if Vic was drunk at the time he witnessed the accident. When Vic responded, “No, I have never been drunk in my life” Dan’s attorney sought to prove through the testimony of another witness that Vic was drunk on New Year’s Eve two years before the accident. The trial judge should rule that Yank’s testimony is:

A. Admissible to impeach VIc by showing that he had an imperfect recollection of recent events.

B. Admissible to show that Vic is not the kind of person on whom one should rely for ascertaining the truth.

C. Inadmissible b/c a witness cannot be impeached by specific acts of misconduct.

D. Inadmissible b/c the question of whether Vic has ever been drunk is a collateral matter and, therefore, while the contradicting question can be asked, no extrinsice evidence can be introduced to disprove a false answer.

Answer 12

• D
• a question can be asked on cross on anything that would be relevant to the person’s perceptive ability and remembering ability (competancy)
• so yes, can ask if W was drunk b/c their ability to perceive and rememeber is affected (competancy)

Question 13

Action for breach of contract. The defendant takes the stand and testifies to anticipatory breach by the plaintiff. On cross-examination, the plaintiff asks the defendant whether he had been dishonorably discharged from the Marine Corps for lying to a Congressional Committe investigating procurement fraud. The defendant objects to the question on the ground of improper impeachment. The trial court should:

A. Require the witness to answer the question as a proper impeachment under Rule 608 and permit extrinsic proof of the discharge if defendant denies it.

B. Sustain the ojbection b/c the question asks for improper character evidence b/c it does not qualify as a felony conviction under Rule 609

C. Require the witness to answer the question as proper impeachment under Rule 608, but prohibit the plaintiff from offering extrinsic proof of the discharge if defendant denies it.

D. Exclude the evidence as improper character evidence under Rule 404.

Answer 13

• C
• yes, can ask the question
• this is credibility under the character category
• 608(b)
  
  • if you have a good faith basis, you can ask the question
  • but you cannot follow up if a false answer is given
    *

Question 14

Darden was prosecuted for armed robbery. At trial, Darden testified in his own behalf, denying that he had committed the robbery. On cross-examination, the prosecutor intends to ask Darden whether he had been convicted of burglary 6 years earlier.

The question concerning the burgalrly conviction is

A. Proper if the court finds that the probative value for impeachment outweighs the prejudice to Darden.

B. Proper, b/c the prosecutor is entitled to make this inquiry as a matter of right under Rule 609 if the defendant take the stand and has been convicted previously.

C. Improper, b/c burglarly does not involve dishonesty or false statement.

D. Improper, b/c the conviction must be proved by court record, not by question on cross-examination.

Answer 14

• A
• ground for impeachment: character evidence - specifically 609
• yes, can ask the question b/c it goes to credibility
• you are not stuck with the answer b/c CER doesn’t apply to 609
• this is tricky b/c it’s the D
• if it is a criminal D that takes the stand (most of the time they won’t), generaly rule, you can’t show that D is a bad guy
  
  • don’t want jury to think he’s a bad guy
  • the worse he is, the more likely to voncit
• 609 is subject to reverse balancing
  
  • presumption is against introducing criminal convictions against the accused
    
    • have to show probative value outweighs the discriminatory effect
• whenever you see a 609 question, look at who is on the stand
  
  • if it’s a criminal D, ask judge through a motion in limine
  • if judge is going to let in evidence, then the W will probably not be called
• if it’s someone other than the accused in a criminal case, it is presumptively admissible
• if it’s the accused, then the courts are likely to exclude it

Question 15

In Polk’s negligence action against Dell arising out of a multiple-car collision, Witt testified for Polk that Dell went through a red light. On cross-examination, Dell seeks to question Witt about her statement that the light was yellow, made in a deposition that Witt gave in a separate action b/t Adams and Dell. The transcript of the deposition is self-authenticating. On proper objection, the court should rule the inquiry

A. Admissible for impeachment only under Rule 613

B. Admissible as substantive evidence only.

C. Admissible for impeachment and as substantive evidence.

D. Inadmissible, b/c it is hearsay not within any exception.

Answer 15

• C
• here we have a prior inconsistant statement
• yes, it comes in for the purpose of impeachment
• b/c it was under oath in a prior proceeding, it will come in even though the other side hasn’t had a chance to examine it
• rule 613: cross reference both admissions and 801(b)(1)(a) as a non hearsay category

Question 16

Nelson is being tried for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with fraudlent efforts to acquire real estate. On direct exaimination of Nelson (a married man) his own attorney asked about his relationship with one of the other alleged coconspirators. Nelson answered, “I have a strictly business relationship with her.” If the defense objects on Rule 608 (improper impeachment), Rule 404 (improper prior bad acts) and Rule 403 (unfairly prejudicial) to the prosecutor’s question about the relationship on cross examination, asking “aren’t the two of you really lovers” (assuming a good faith basis for asking the question) the court should:

A. Overrule the objections and allow the question b/c the question contradicts the direct testimony and is relevant to the alleged conspiracy relationship b/t the parties.

B. Sustain the Rule 608 objection, b/c an affair is not a prior bad act that goes to truthfulness.

C. Sustain the Rule 404 and 403 objections b/c a married man’s sexual relationship with another woman would constitute a prior bad act and it would be unfairly prejudicial.

D. Both B and C are correct

see US v. Brockeborrough

Answer 16

• A
• this question goes to bias and potential contradiction
• if you have any relevant non collateral issue, then you can get it in
• can prove the false answer b/c of bias

Question 17

Drew is charged with a murder of Pitt. The prosecutor introduced testimony of a police officer that Pitt told a priest, administering the last rite, “I was stabbed by Drew. Since I am dying, tell him I forgive him.” Thereafter, Drew’s attorney offers the testimony of Wall that the day before, when Pitt believed he would live, he stated that he had been stabbed by Jack, an old enemy. The testimony of Wall is:

A. Admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule

B. Admissible to impeach the dead declarant

C. Inadmissible b/c it goes to the ultimate issue in the case

D. Inadmissible b/c an improper impeachment of a dead declarant.

Answer 17

• B
• this is going to come in b/c it’s a contradicting statement
• issue: can you impeach a dead W?
  
  • yes, b/c his testimony comes in as a hearsay exception (806)
• rule: you can impeach people that take the stand and people who’s testimony cam in either directly or indirectly
  
  • ex. deposition
    
    • the people who depose are subject to the same 5 grounds of impeachment
    • their testimony has to be introduced

Question 18

Davis is being tried for the rape of Peg by force. Davis admits to having sex with Peg, but insists that the sex was consensual. Zeke, a witness from the village of Meadows in another state, testified for the defendant. The prosecution waived cross-examination, whereupon defendant’s attorney offered Joe as a witness to testify that Zeke had a reputation for truth and veractiy in Meadows. On objection, the trial judge should rule Joe’s testimony

A. Inadmissible b/c the reputation testimony involves a different jurisdiction

B. Inadmissible b/c you cannot corroborate by reputation testimony unless the opponent seeks to impeach the witness by character evidence for untruthfulness.

C. Admissible character evidence under Rule 608

D. Inadmissible hearsay.

Answer 18

• is not going to come in
• voucher rule - can’t vouch until they other side attacked
• 608(a): any time W takes the stand, their character/truthfrulness is at issue
  
  • allows another W to take the stand to say someone else is a liar
• waived cross so they haven’t been attacked so they haven’t opened the door for 608(b) evidence to come in

Question 19

Davis is being tried for the rape of Peg by force. Davis admits to having sex with Peg, but insists that the sex was consensual. Zeke, a witness from the village of Meadows in another state, testified for the defendant. The prosecution waived cross-examination, whereupon defendant’s attorney offered Joe as a witness to testify that Zeke had a reputation for truth and veractiy in Meadows. On objection, the trial judge should rule Joe’s testimony

In the above rape trial, to prove consent, Davis calls Quigley, a defense-witness, who testifies that he had overheard Peg invite Davis to become intimate with her that night. On cross-exaimination, Quigley may properly be asked whether he was ever

A. Arrested

B. Convicted of a felony, but the cross-examiner is bound by QUigley’s answer

C. Convicted of a misdemeanor, and the cross-examiner is not bound by Quigley’s answer

D. Convicted of such crimes as perjury, robbery, embezzlement, larceny by trick, larceny by bailee, and larceny, and the cross exaiminer is not bound by the answer.

Answer 19

• D
• you can ask if someone was arrested, but only if the arrest goes to a dishonest act (doesn’t have to be an arrest)
• arrested question generally doesn’t come in unless its for a dishonest act
• can come in b/c they are crimes that go to truthfulness
• doesn’t need to have an arrest so long as its a crime involving truthfullness

Question 20

Powers sued Debbs for battery. At trial, Powers’ witness Wilson testified that Debbs attacked Powers without any provocation. On cross examination, Debbs asks Wilson about a false claim that Wilson had once filed on an insurance policy. The question is:

A. Proper under Rule 608, b/c the conduct involved untruthfulness

B. Proper provided the conduct resulted in conviction of Wilson.

C. Improper, b/c the impeachment involved a specific instance of misconduct,

D. Improper without extrinsic proof of the false claim.

Answer 20

• 608(b)
• any W that takes the stand can be questioned about prior bad acts that go to truthfulness
• A

Question 21

A, a resident of NY, is on trial for the murder of B. A testifies that she acted in self-defense. A offers the testimony of Minister Smith, that A’s reputation in the congregation, back in Kansas, is that “A was honest, churchgoing woman.” The testimony is

A. inadmissible b/c it is improper reputation evidence in this case

B. Inadmissible b/c reputation evidence is not admissible in a criminal case

C. Admissible general reputation evidence, but only if A’s credibility for truthfulness is first attacked.

D. Inadmissbile hearsay.

Answer 21

• C
• can ask question but only if she’s been attacked
• voucher rule - can ask question but only if been attacked
  
  • subject to exception under 404

Question 22

In a forgery trial the prosecution offers a 2 year old armed robbery (a felony) arrest to impeach the defendant who has testified. Which is the most appropriate ruling:

A. The prior arrest is admissible only if the court concludes that the probative value of the arrest outweights its prejudicial impact.

B. Armed robbery involves dishonesty or false statement, therefore the court has no discretion to exclude the arrest.

C. The arrest should be excluded b/c the character for lack of truth and veracity of a defendant who testifies may not be attacked until the defendant offers evidence of his good character.

D. The arrest should be excluded.

Answer 22

• D
• can’t ge it in
• don’t confuse arrest and conviction
• felony arrests in general can’t get in
• crime in falsi arrests may come in

Question 23

In an intersection auto collision case, when the witness denies the question at issue, extrinsic evidence is admissible to disprove a false answer that

A. the witness has been convicted of simple assault (misdemeanor)

B. The witness is not employed where he testified he is employed.

C. The witness was not standing on the corner where he testfied he was standing when he observed the accident.

D. The witness was not on his way to mail a letter, as he testified, when he saw the accident.

Answer 23

• C
• Can introduce extrinsic evidence b/c it goes to credibility, specifically competency (ability to perceive, narrate, rememeber)
• if you can show he wasn’t there, it shows he can’t remember
• subject to the CER

Question 24

Personal injury suit arising out of the collision of cars driven by a rabbi and a Catholic bishop. A witness testifies that both were at fault. On cross exaimination, the witness is asked if he is a member of the KKK (which preaches dislike of Jews and Catholics). The question is:

A. An improper innuendo upon the witness’ character

B. A proper impeachment question if asked in good faith.

C. Objectionable b/c irrelevant to the facts of the case

D. Objectionable b/c it violates Rule 610, which prohibits impeaching a witness on the basis of his religious belifs.

Answer 24

• B
• can ask b/c it goes to bias
• is the Abel case
• rule: religion can be used to impeach if it goes to bias

Question 25

Potts sued Dobbs on a product liability claim. Louis testified for Potts. On cross-examination, assuming a good fatih factual basis for each questio, which of the following questions is the trial judge most likely to rule improper?

A. You agree that you are Potts’ close friend

B. Are you known in the community as Louie the Lush b/c of your addiction to alcohol

C. Did you fail to report some income on your tax return last yer

D. Were you convicted 7 years agao in this court of obtaining money under false pretenses

Question 26

Michael Jackson is on trial for child molestation. The following questions are proper impeachment questions that would be allowed on cross eximination of the alleged victim’s mother, who has testified for the prosecution in support of the sexual molestation allegations.

A. Have you ever fraudulently applied for welfare payments?

B. Have you previosly denied the sexual molestation claims?

C. Have you been convicted of shoplifting?

D. A and B are correct

Answer 26

• D
  *

Question 27

In a tax fraud case the government on cross examination asks the Defendant, who claims that he merely relied on the advice of his accountants, whether he has also altered time cards, inflated billings, and stolen records in unrelated employment misdeeds. The court should:

A. Sustain the objection b/c each of these misdeeds has nothing to do with the crime charged of tax fraud

B. Overrules the objection b/c the Defendant by testifying has put in issue his credibility

C. Sustain the objection b/c non of the alleged misdeeds incolved convictions

D. Sustain the objection under Rule 404 as improper bad acts

Answer 27

• US v. Simonelli
• B
• these are 608(b) questions

Question 28

In a tax fraud case the government on cross examination asks the Defendant, who claims that he merely relied on the advice of his accountants, whether he has also altered time cards, inflated billings, and stolen records in unrelated employment misdeeds.

In the above tax fraud case following Defendant’s denial of each and every allegation, the Prosecution seeks to introduce evidence proving that the Defendant in fact committed each act of dishonesty. If the Defense objects as improper impeachment, the court should:

A. Overrule the objection because by denying the prior bad acts that related to the dishonesty, the Defendant has opened the door to rebuttal testimony.

B. Overrule the objection because Rule 608(b) permits the introduction of extrinsic evidence to disprove a false answer.

C. Overrule the objection b/c the patterned instances of employment dishonesty are admissible as a business routine under Rule 406.

D. Sustain the objection because while Rule 608(b) permits cross examination if conducted in good faith regarding the witnesses prior acts of dishonesty, the examiner is bound by the witness’s answers.

Answer 28

• D
• any 608(b) questions overlaps 609
• if just 608(b) can ask, but no follow up

Question 29

In a case involving the prosecution of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the defense on cross examination of the prosecution’s key witness who testified that the defendant had pointed a gun at her and fired several shots and who had also testified she and her friends were just drinking pina coladas, asks the wintess whether she was “also getting high that night” on cocaine? The prosecution objects on the grounds of improper impeachment and relevancy. The court should:

A. Sustain the objection b/c whether a witness was using cocaine the night for which she was giving testimony about is irrelevant.

B. Sustain the objection b/c whether a witness was using cocaine the night for which she was giving testimony about is inadmissible prior bad acts under Rule 404.

C. Sustain the objection b/c of the collateral evidence rule

D. Overrule the objection b/c the use of cocaine the night for which she is giving testimony about would be relevant to the witnesses perception and memory of the events of that night.

Answer 29

-US v. Fonseca

• D
• competency question

Question 30

In a case involving the prosecution of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the defense on cross examination of the prosecution’s key witness who testified that the defendant had pointed a gun at her and fired several shots and who had also testified she and her friends were just drinking pina coladas, asks the wintess whether she was “also getting high that night” on cocaine? The prosecution objects on the grounds of improper impeachment and relevancy

In the above unlawful possession case, assuming the court overrules the objection related to whether the prosecution witness was using cocaine the night for which she is testifying about, and the witness continues to deny that she used cocaine that night, may the defense introduce testimony of a toxicologist that the witness tested positive for cocaine that night? If the prosecution objects, the court should:

A. Sustain the objection b/c whether a witness was using cocaine the night for which she was giving testimony about is irrelevant.

B. Sustain the objection b/c whether a witness was using cocaine the night for which she was giving testimony about is inadmissible prior bad acts under Rule 404.

C. Sustain the objection b/c of the CER

D. Overrule the objection b/c use of cociaine the night for which she is giving testimony about would be relevant to the witnesses perception and memory of the events that night and competency is not subject to CER.

Answer 30

• D
• question goes to competency so you can ask it
• CER doesn’t apply
• analysis:
  
  • (1) identify type of question
  • (2) identify whether CER applies
• whenever they talk about extrinsic evidence, they are getting at whether CER applies
• any time you have a competency (ability to perceive, remember, narrate) then you have a competency issue and you can ask the question and follow up if they give a false answer

Question 31

In a case involving the prosecution of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the defense on cross examination of the prosecution’s key witness who testified that the defendant had pointed a gun at her and fired several shots and who had also testified she and her friends were just drinking pina coladas, asks the wintess whether she was “also getting high that night” on cocaine? The prosecution objects on the grounds of improper impeachment and relevancy

In the above unlawful possession case, assume that the defense, for purposes of impeachment, also seeks to impeach the same government witness, who has testified that she does not use drugs, by asking about a crack cocaine pipe found in her purse during an arrest the month before the incident at issue. If the prosecution objects on grounds of improper impeachment, the court should:

A. Sustain the objection b/c whether a witness may have used cocaine a month before the time she testified is irrelevant.

B. Sustain the objection because whether a witness was using drugs a month before the time for which she was giving testimony about is inadmissible prior bad acts under Rule 404.

C. Sustain the objection b/c of the collateral evidence rule.

D. Overrule the objection b/c the witness’s testimony that she does not use drugs has opened the door for questioning her about evidence that would contradict that statement.

Answer 31

• D
• prior inconsistant statement (613) is very similar to contradiction
• this is not inconsistent statement
• this is contradiction
• CER applies so so noevidence comes in to prove whether they found crack coaine pipe in her purse
• if she denies it, they can’t get it in
• 3 questions:
  
  • (1) identify the type of question
  • (2) identify whether CER applies
  • (3) if CER applies, is the extrinsic evidence only relevant to impeach or is it material to the case?
    
    • if just relevant to impeach, then you can’t get it in
• competency and bias are both CL and not subject to CER
• character evidence and 609 are also not subject to CER
  
  • b/c if you have extrinsic evidence, it’s easy to prove

Question 32

In a case involving the prosecution of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, the defense on cross examination of the prosecution’s key witness who testified that the defendant had pointed a gun at her and fired several shots and who had also testified she and her friends were just drinking pina coladas, asks the wintess whether she was “also getting high that night” on cocaine? The prosecution objects on the grounds of improper impeachment and relevancy

In the above unlawful possession case, assume that the defense, for pruposes of impeachment, also seeks to impeach the same government witness, who has testified that she does not use drugs, by introducing an arrest report indicating that the witness had been arrested the month before the incident at issue for possession of drug paraphernalia. If the prosecution objects on grounds of improper impeachment, the court should:

A. Sustain the objection b/c whether a wintess may have used cocaine a month beofre the time she testified is irrelevant.

B. Sustain the objection b/c whether a witness was using drugs a month before the time for which she was giving testimony about is inadmissible prior bas acts under Rule 404.

C. Sustain the objection b/c of the collateral evidence rule.

D. Overrule the objection b/c the witness’s testimony that she does not use drugs has opened the door for not only questioning her about evidence that would contradict that statement, but also extrinsic evidence to contradict if she denies the impeachment question.

Answer 32

• C
  *

Question 33

In an action for aiding and abetting in the preparation of false and fraudulent income tax returns, in response to the defendant’s testimony that he would never counsel anyone regarding improper tax avoidance schemes, the prosecution seeks to impeach the defendant on cross examination by asking him on unrelated conduct whether he had failed to file his own income tax returns for the years 1992-98. If Defendant objects on the grounds of improper impeachment and relevancy, the court should:

A. Overrule the objection b/c a witness may be asked under Rule 608(b) of prior bad acts that go to truthfulness

B. Overrule because different forms of tax fraud may be relevant to intent under Rule 404.

C. Sustain the objection as improper impeachment.

D. Sustain the objection on the basis of Rule 404, prohibitng evidence of prior bad acts.

Answer 33

• A
• US v. Crockett
• can ask question
• relate to 608(b)
• every W, if you have a good faith basis,

Question 34

In a sexual molestation case, the state wants to offer testimony under Rule 608(a) from a psychologist regarding whether the alleged victim was telling the truth about the alleged sexual molestation. If the defense objects on the grounds of improper opinion on character, the court should

A. Sustain the objection b/c an opinion on truthfulness of the events is a jury issue

B. Overrule the objection b/c a witness can testify regarding an opinion of another of another witness’s truthfulness

C. Overrule the opinion on the basis of Rule 702

D. Overrule the opinion because under Rule 608 an expert may testify to psychological conditions that would be helpful to the jury in determining whether the witness was telling the truth while testifying.

Answer 34

• State v. Adams
• A
• 608(a)
  
  • can’t ask if the person is telling the truth
  • allows someone to say “this person is not a truth teller”
  • can call a W to say “either reputation or opinion that the person that just testifyied does not testify about the truth”
    
    • called character evidence for truthfulness
  • one form of character evidence is whether someone is a truth teller in the abstract
  • can’t vouch until they’ve been attacked
  • so if someone testifies, you can call someone else and ask “what do you think about that person’s ability to tell the truth” answer: she’s liar
  • both sides can ask about generalities and then both side can cross examine on specifics (so long as there is a good faith basis)
• ex. if child takes the stand and says “I was sexually molested” and then asked “you’ve said yes and no” –> this is an attack on credibility
• **did that person just tell the truth (or he’s a liar with regard to what he just said)
  
  • this is improper imepachment of a W
• does a person tell the truth in general
  
  • this is allowed

Question 35

In a sexual molestation case, the state wants to offer testimony under Rule 608(a) from a psychologist regarding whether the alleged victim was telling the truth about the alleged sexual molestation.

In the sexual molestation case above, rather than testifying that the victim was telling the truth, the psycologist seeks to testify regarding the victim’s cognitive ability to fabricate the details of a sexual encounter.

A. Sustain the objection b/c an opinon on truthfullness of the events is a jury issue.

B. Overrule the objection b/c a wintess can testify regarding an opinion of another witness’s truthfulness.

C. Overrule the opinion on the basis of Rule 702.

D. Overrule the opinion b/c under Rule 608, an expert may testify to psychological conditions that would be helpful to the jury in determining whether the wintess was telling the truth while testifying.

Answer 35

• State v. Adams
• D
• psychologist talking about cognitive abilities is okay
• just saying the cognitive ability to give testimony
• will sometimes allow experts to say that the behavior is one of a pattern that is consistant with someone who was abused
  
  • can present from a psychological standpoint