Impeachment

Question 1

Impeachment by prior inconsisten statements

Answer 1

• W tesitfies
• statement inconsistent with W’s trial testimony
• prior statement was made underoath at priot trial/hear/depo (if offered for the truth)
  
  • CA: doesnt require underoath
• W has opportunitty to explain or deny

Question 2

Impeachment/Rehabiliation by prior consistent statements

Answer 2

• W testifies
• statement is consistent with W’s trial testimony
• statement rebuts express/implied charge of recent fabringcation or improper influence or motive
• statement made before alleged influence or motive

Question 3

Impeachment by contradiction

Answer 3

No exact rule” evidence which contradicts what a witness said

• still subject to 403 and 353 (undue prejudice)

Question 4

Impeachment with eviedence of charachter for untruthfulness/truthfulness

Answer 4

• relates to the character trait of truthfulness
  
  • dont be confused with forgetfullness
• character of the testifying W

Question 5

Examining other witness to support or attack W’s character for truthfulness

Answer 5

direct/redirect:

• reputation/opinion
• to attack or rehabilitate credibility- CANT BOLSTER

Cross

• specifica instances
• cant follow up with extrinsic evidence

CA Prop 8- Criminal Cases

• bolstering allowed
• specific instances allowed
• can introduce extrinsic evidence
• all subject to 352

Question 6

Examining witness himself about his own character for truthfulness

Answer 6

federal

• no bolstering
• specific instances alowed on cross and redirect

CA civil

• no bolstering
• no specifc instances

CA criminal

all forms allowed at all times thanks to prop 8

Question 7

Impeachment prior convicitions (federal)

Answer 7

FRE 609

1. pardon, annuled based on rehabilitation or innocence
   
   • yes- inadmissible
2. more than 10 years
   
   • yes- inadmissible
3. conviction involed dishonesty or false statement
4. felony
5. criminal defendant

• yes: subject to 609(a)(1)(B)- probative value outweights prejudicial effect
• no: subject to 403- prejudicial effect outweight probative value

Question 8

Impeachment with convictions

[California: Civil]

Answer 8

• Felonies only
• inadmissible if pardoned based on rehab or innocence annulled
• apply beagle factors
  
  • bearing on veracity
  • remotness in time
  • similarity to conduct currently at issue
  • number of convictions
  • deterring key witness from testifying

Question 9

Beagle Factors

Answer 9

1. Bearing on veracity
2. remoteness in time
3. similarity to conduct currently at issue
4. number of convictions
5. deterring key witness from testifying

Question 10

Impeachment with convictions

[California: Criminal]

Answer 10

CEC 788/Prop 8

• felony or misdemeanor
• due process reuqires conviction involve “moral turpitude”
• court may use beagle factros in applying § 352 to decide whether to exclude conviction

Question 11

Impeachment Bias

Answer 11

• Witness can be impeached by evidence that the witness harbos a bias, interest, or other movite that cast doubts on the accuracy of the witness’s testimony
• religous affiliations: code and rules prohibit use to show credibility but disclosure of an afficliation is admissible for purposes of showing bias at interest