Impeachment and Testimonial Evidence Flashcards
Effect of impeachment:
Impeachment casts an adverse reflection on the veracity of W’s testimony
Any party may impeach any W
Methods of impeachment
- Contradiction
- Prior inconsistent statement (PIS)
- Bias or interest
- Sensory deficiencies (E.g., W’s senses were incapable of producing the perceptions to which W testified)
- Reputation and/or opinion of untruthfulness (Admissible to impeach W’s veracity by use of extrinsic evidence)
- Prior acts of misconduct (Extrinsic evidence is prohibited)
- Prior criminal conviction
Can you use evidence supporting witness credibility?
Inadmissible unless credibility has been attacked (i.e., W has been impeached)
- Exception - W’s prior consistent statement is admissible if the statement was made before W had a motive to fabricate
What is extrinsic evidence?
Any evidence other than W’s testimony at the current proceeding
- Includes evidence of out-of-court prior inconsistent statements
What is a collateral matter?
A fact not material to issues in the case
- Says nothing about W’s credibility; only used to contradict W (e.g. W1 testifies he was headed to the store when he saw D commit murder; defense cannot call W2 to testify that W1 was really headed to see his mistress -this is collateral (i.e., not material) to the issue of what W1 saw)
-
Test - to determine if evidence is collateral, ask: would the evidence be material to the given issue if not for W’s contrary assertion?
- If not, it is likely collateral
When can you use extrinsic evidence?
Extrinsic evidence may not be used to impeach a W on collateral matters
Extrinsic evidence is admissible on non collateral matters and for non-impeachment purposes (e.g., to show bias)
How do you impeach someone with a contradiction?
Any evidence may be used to show W has made contradictory statements on material issues, which means that if the contradiction is on a collateral thing is not possible to use extrinsic evidence.
Extrinsic evidence allowed?: No, unless non-collateral
Confrontation required?: Yes
How do you impeach someone with a PIS (prior inconsistent statement)
Impeachment by showing that W made material statement inconsistent with testimony.
It may establish trough cross-exam
Extrinsic evidence allowed?: YES, unless collateral matter
Opportunity to defend: yes, but timing for confrontation is flexible. Not required if opposing party or hearsay declarant
What are the effects of impeaching someone with a PIS?
If declarant gave statement:
- Without oath or hearsay: only impeachment (unless opposing party)
- Oath: Impeachment and Substantive Evidence
PIS admissibility
if PIS is hearsay, it is admissible for impeachment purposes, but inadmissible as substantive evidence (to prove the truth of the matter asserted)
- I.e., a hearsay PIS may only be considered for its bearing on W’s credibility
- If the PIS is not hearsay or it falls under a hearsay exemption/ exception, it may be considered for any purpose
how do you Impeach by establishing bias?
By showing anything that will give the witness a motive to falsify or slant the testimony. Typical bias: Friend, relative, someone paid by the party, prior grudge. Settlement beneficiary
Cross exam?: Yes
Extrinsic evidence: Yes
Confrontation required?: Yes, W must be questioned on cross-exam regarding the facts that show bias or interest so that W has an opportunity to explain or deny
How do you Impeach by prior instances of misconduct?
W may be questioned on cross-exam about any prior misconduct probative of truthfulness (i.e., lying or deceit)
- An arrest is not the same as misconduct - must be an act of lying
- Extrinsic: No extrinsic evidence permitted - W may only be asked about prior misconduct; questioning attorney must accept W’s answer
- Confrontation required?: YES, only good way of doing it
How do you Impeach by an opinion or reputation for untruthfulness
W may be impeached by testimony describing his reputation for untruthfulness in the community. Character evidence is used nothing specific
Extrinsic: Yes, only way of doing so (another W)
Confrontation: Not needed, but the W can admit it in cross-e
Three types of Impeachment by prior conviction, what are they?
- Prior conviction
- Prior conviction involving act of dishonesty
- Convictions more than 10 years old (felonies & misdemeanors)
Impeachment by prior conviction (no dishonesty)
Felonies not involving dishonesty/false statements:
- If W is the D -admissible if govt. shows probative value outweighs prejudicial effect.
- If W is non-D - admissible but court can exclude under 403 balancing (prejudice outweighs probative value)
Misdemeanors: inadmissible unless it involves dishonesty/ false statements
Impeachment by prior conviction w act of dishonesty
Always admissible - court has no discretion to exclude under 403 (rare exception to 403)
Always admissible when felonies and misdemeanors are related to dishonesty (e.g. perjury, fraud)
What is an act of dishonesty for impeachment purposes?
Acts of dishonesty - prior conviction required proof or admission of an act of dishonesty or false statement (e.g., perjury, fraud)
Impeachment by prior conviction more than 10y
Not admissible, unless: Probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice (inverse of 403 balancing) and adverse party is given notice
Determining 10-year date - more than 10 years must have elapsed since date of conviction or date of release from confinement, whichever is later
Standards for the exclusion of evidence:
- Rule 403: Probative Value must not be substantially outweighed by Risk of unfair prejudice”, Probative Value <<< UNFAIR PREJUDICE
- Rule of exclusion for prior crimes impeachment, when W is not D: Rule 403
- Rule of exclusion for prior crimes impeachment if the W is D “Prosecution must show that Probative value outweighs risk of unfair prejudice” PROB. VALUE > Unfair Prejudice
- Rule for Admission for 10y+ crimes: Old crimes are not admissible, Reverse 403 “Unless the probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice” PROBATIVE VALUE >>> Unfair Prejudice
How do you rehabilitate an impeached witness
Prior consistent statements are a method of rehabilitation.
However, it only works when he has been impeached by an argument about the W exaggerating or lying by invoking a motive to do so (bias). A prior consistent statement will show that he didn’t have a motive to lie
It also works for defending an impeachment based on credibility (inconsistency or sensory deficiency), counsel may introduce a prior consistent statement if, under the circumstances, it has a special tendency to rehabilitate the witness’s credibility.
However this won’t work for prior criminal convictions or acts of misconduct impeachment
Can you impeach/rehabilitate someone that is not available?
Yes, There is no requirement that a declarant must be present at trial to be impeached.
Under Federal Rule 806, the credibility of an unavailable declarant may be attacked by evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness.
If the declarant is impeached with evidence of her prior inconsistent statement, the foundational requirement that she must explain or deny her statement does not apply.
Furthermore, where the declarant’s credibility is impeached, it may also be rehabilitated.
Witness competency standard
Testifying witnesses must be competent, meaning they must satisfy requirements of basic reliability
- Witnesses are generally presumed to be competent
What are the competency qualifications of a witness?
Competency qualifications - to be competent, W must have:
- Personal knowledge - W’s testimony must be based on her own perceptions (e.g., what W saw or heard)
- Memory- W must have the ability to remember (e.g., must not have amnesia)
- Communication- W must be able to relay her perceptions, either directly or through an interpreter
- Sincerity - W must take an oath or affirm to tell the truth
Diminution of any of the above capacities usually goes only to the weight of testimony (i.e., makes W less persuasive)