Methods of Witness Impeachment

Question 1

By opinion, reputation, specific acts

Answer 1

1. FREv: opinion and reputation are admissible, specific acts are admissible only on cross (subject to 403 balancing and no extrinsic evidence)
2. but in CA: can admit specific acts to impeach in criminal case, but only if they involve moral turpitude under Prop 8 subject to balancing
   i. if admitted, subject to 352 balancing, but extrinsic evidence is permitted (unlike FREv)
   ii. only in criminal cases
   iii. no specific act evidence allowed in civil cases under CEC

Question 2

By prior convictions – federal law

Answer 2

under FRE:

1. old convictions: over 10 years
   i. reverse 403: the conviction is admissible only if probative value substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect
2. recent conviction: within 10 years
   i. involving dishonesty or false statement: automatically admissible
   ii. non-felony, and no dishonesty or false statement: not admissible
   iii. other recent felony convictions:
   a. witness is criminal Δ: admitted if probative value outweighs prejudice (weak 403)
   b. if witness is not criminal ∆: regular 403

Question 3

By prior convictions in CA– for felonies

Answer 3

(admissible if turpitude)

1. felonies involving moral turpitude are admissible to impeach, but court can balance
   i. moral turpitude:
   a. crimes of lying, violence, theft, extreme recklessness, or sexual misconduct
   b. not crimes for merely negligent or unintentional acts
2. felonies not involving moral turpitude are inadmissible
3. notes:
   i. Prop 8 does not apply, bc must be a crime of moral turpitude to be relevant for impeachment
   ii. there is always balancing available

Question 4

By prior convictions in CA– for misdemeanors

Answer 4

admissible if Prop 8: turpitude in criminal law)
1. misdemeanors misconduct inadmissible in civil cases

2. misdemeanors misconduct in criminal casses can be admitted under Prop 8 if the case involves moral turpitude (which makes it relevant), subject to §352 balancing

Question 5

Summary for prior convictions in CA

Answer 5

1. crime of moral turpitude?
   i. no: not admissible

ii. yes:
a. felony? admissible
b. misdemeanor? admissible only if criminal case (Prop 8)

Question 6

By prior inconsistent statements

Answer 6

1. for witness impeachment by prior inconsistent statements
   i. same as FREv: can be used to impeach
2. for truth of matter asserted (see hearsay rule):
   i. in FREv: not hearsay and admissible for truth if made in under oath subject to cross
   ii. CA: is hearsay, but is admissible for truth under a broad exception that applies for all inconsistent statements regardless of if given under oath