Evidence Video

Character Evidence (49min)

Evidence Video
Impeachment (31min)

What is Impeachment?
 Impeachment has everything to do with the creditability of a witness.
 Impeachment is attempting to show that the witness is not creditable and that the jury
should not believe the witness

What is Bolstering?
 Bolstering a witness creditability is an attempt to strengthen a witnesses creditability
before it has been attacked

The Rule of Bolstering:

 Bolstering is generally prohibited without an attack on creditability or an attempt to
impeach there is no need to bolster a witnesses creditability

o Example: witness 1 goes on the stand and say defendant ran

a red light. Witness 2 goes on the stand and says
witness 1 has a good reputation in the
community. This is not allowed. You cannot
strengthen a witnesses creditability before it has
been attacked. Here this is impermissible
bolstering, it is a attempt to strengthen the
witnesses creditability before it has been attacked
Exception to Bolstering:
 Prior identification of a person is a permissible form of bolstering

Impeaching a Witness
 Typically a lawyer is impeaching a witness on cross examination, that the other side has
called to the witness stand.
 You may impeach your own witness, it is permitted without limitation
How to Impeach a Witness
 2 Procedural Considerations for each impeachment method:

1. Can the Impeaching Fact be Proven with Extrinsic Evidence?

o Can you use evidence other than the testimony of the witness your
impeaching to prove the impeaching fact OR do you just have to accept
the witnesses answer to the question.

2. Assuming that Extrinsic Evidence is Permissible, Must I First Confront the

Witness with the Impeaching Fact Before I Prove it with Extrinsic Evidence?

There are 7 Impeachment Methods:

1) Prior Inconsistent Statements

 Any witness can be impeached by showing that on some prior occasion
they made a material statement either orally or in writing that is
inconsistent with their trial testimony(the purpose is to suggest that their
testimony is false, slanted or mistaken in favor of a particular party).

 Generally Prior Inconsistent Statements are not substantive evidence, they

do not come in for the truth of the matter asserted.

 If they are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, than they are
generally Hearsay.

 Certain Prior Inconsistent Statements are substantive evidence and they

are

o Example: Defendant is sued for negligence in a multivehicle

accident in which he was driving his suburban. The
witness testifies for the plaintiff that she saw the
Suburban run the stop sign. On cross examination
defendants counsel may seek to establish that a few
days after the accident the witness to the police that
a jeep not the suburban ran the stop sign. The
reason for this is because the trial testimony is
inconsistent with this statement made before

 This is a prior inconsistent statement and It is admissible to Impeach the

witness
 If the witness admits that she made the prior inconsistent statement can
the defendant use that statement as substantive evidence that the jeep ran
the stop sign rather than the Jeep
  Is that Prior Inconsistent Statement evidence that there really was a jeep Cherokee
that ran the stop sign(substantitve evidence) or is it merely admissible to impeach, to
show inconsistency or cast doubt on trial testimony?
 It is not substantive evidence, that the jeep ran the stop sign

2) Bias, Interest, Motive to Misrepresent



3) Sensory Deficiency


 The rest are ways to show that the witness has a bad character for truthfulness:

4) Bad Reputation About the Witnesses Characters for Truthfulness



5) Criminal Convictions


6) Bad Acts that Did Not result in a Conviction but Reflect Adversely on
Character for Truthfulness
 It means that the witness has a propensity to lie, a disposition to lie

7) Contradiction
