838:
statement (consistent with the testimony) before the alleged events that gave rise to the alleged motive to lie. The jury is left with two pretrial statements that are inconsistent with each other, but only one is inconsistent with the testimony, and both were made before the witness was allegedly gotten to. Thus, there might be softening of the accusation that the testimony flows from such as a bribe. Also, there is always a case for allowing a prior consistent statement made at any time before trial to help explain away what is arguably only a seemingly inconsistent statement that is subject to interpretation, such as if it was lifted out of the context that would explain the statement.
794:
the opportunity to present evidence contradicting that witness. Had impeachment by contradiction not been allowed by the rules of evidence, the second attorney would have been barred from presenting the contradicting evidence because the second attorney already had only one chance to prove the facts of the case as claimed. Since his opponent put on a witness, that "opens the door" to strengthen the case by going again with more proof of what happened: the only legal excuse for the rehash of the claim is impeaching by contradiction his opponent's witness.
798:
relevance, contradiction may be allowed. Thus, a witness might not normally be permitted to testify being a safe driver and the opponent cannot normally prove that the driver is unsafe, but if the witness nonetheless happens to testify being a safe driver (no objection was made to the question), the opponent can now contradict by eliciting on cross-examination that the driver was involved in several accidents. Had contradiction impeachment not been permitted, the unsafe character of the witness would have been barred by the rules of evidence.
782:
25:
1120:
805:. The defendant's testimony will naturally deny possessing the particular drug. Suppose the defendant foolishly testifies on direct examination, "In fact, I've never possessed heroin in my life." The prosecutor can then, on cross-examination, impeach him with an exhibit of heroin seized on an unrelated occasion even if it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The
1027:: "Any prior felony conviction of any person in any criminal proceeding, whether adult or juvenile, shall subsequently be used without limitation for purposes of impeachment or enhancement of sentence in any criminal proceeding. When a prior felony conviction is an element of any felony offense, it shall be proven to the trier of fact in open court."
820:
All experienced courtroom observers, however, agree that jurors will have great difficulty understanding that distinction, known as "limited admissibility" or "admissibility for a limited purpose". Even more unlikely is the prospect that a juror who understands the instruction will be psychologically
793:
Another form of impeachment by contradiction has a subtle effect on the order in which the attorneys present their evidence. When a defense attorney calls a witness who testifies about what happened, or plaintiff's attorney or a prosecutor calls a witness in rebuttal, that gives the opposing attorney
652:
before extrinsic evidence can be used to demonstrate bias for impeachment purposes. Although Rule 610 provides that evidence of a witness's "religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness's credibility," an inquiry into the witness's religious beliefs or opinions for
743:
A party may impeach a witness for character by cross-examining the witness but not by introducing extrinsic evidence, about specific instances of prior misconduct, often called "prior bad acts," as long as the questions relate to the witness's own character for truthfulness (or untruthfulness) or to
730:
The probative value must merely outweigh unfair prejudice. If the witness is a person other than the defendant, the evidence of the prior felony conviction for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement is admissible unless the party objecting to the evidence succeeds in the more difficult
726:
Furthermore, if the cross-examining party seeks to introduce evidence of a felony not involving dishonesty or false statement, its success in impeaching the witness will depend on whether the witness is the defendant or not. If the witness is defendant, the burden is on the prosecution to show that
833:
To rehabilitate a witness, the proponent is confined to using the same techniques used by the opponent to impeach the witness. That is, if the opponent impeached via bias, rehabilitation is limited to negating the claim of bias. If the opponent brought in a rebuttal witness who testified to the
829:
The general rule is that the proponent of a witness may not attempt to build up the witness's credibility prior to being impeached. The rationale is that the witness is presumed trustworthy. It also speeds proceedings by not spending time bolstering when the other side may not even impeach the
696:
The cross-examining attorney need not disclose or show the contents of a prior inconsistent statement to a witness prior to the moment he is questioned. If the witness's attorney asks to see the prior inconsistent statement, however, the questioning attorney must show or disclose its contents.
837:
If the opponent shows that the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and implies that after that statement and prior to trial the witness was "gotten to" or otherwise developed a motive to lie in court, rehabilitation can be attempted by showing that the witness made a prior consistent
816:
Impeachment by contradiction evidence is admitted solely to impeach: it cannot be used to prove anything about the events being litigated but only to discredit the witness's credibility. The theory is that when a witness can be contradicted, it should be taken into account in determining the
797:
Another use of impeachment by contradiction can be explained negatively. An attorney cannot contradict an opponent's witness on a trivial ("collateral") fact like the color of the hat worn on the day she witnessed the accident, but on more important matters normally excluded by the rules of
705:
The majority of US jurisdictions permit parties to impeach witnesses by demonstrating their "bad" character regarding truthfulness. Under the
Federal Rules a party may demonstrate that by reputation or opinion testimony. That is, a witness's credibility cannot be bolstered, only impeached.
834:
character of principal witness as that of a liar, rehabilitation is limited to a character witness who testifies principal witness is a truthful person. That is a different consideration from the ever-present right to cross-examine any witness, including character witnesses.
821:
capable of obeying it. The only practical impact of this limited admissibility is that the evidence cannot be used to prop up a weak case that would otherwise be dismissed by the court for insufficient evidence, as it was admitted only for the impeachment of a witness.
718:
of a crime, subject to a series of rules laid out in 609(a). If the witness's prior conviction was for a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of that crime is admissible for impeachment purposes regardless of whether the crime was a
761:
The witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (such as he could not see from where he was), or he lacked the requisite mental capacity. Older common law would exclude an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, such as the
734:
The probative value must substantially outweigh unfair prejudice. Finally, if a conviction is more than 10 years old, the probative value of admitting the conviction must substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice under FRE 609(b).
563:, a party could not impeach its own witness unless one of four special circumstances was met. The Voucher Rule required the proponent of the witness to "vouch" for the truthfulness of the witness. Here are the special circumstances:
648:. Witness bias may be catalyzed by any number of circumstances, ranging from the witness's blood relationship to a party to his financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. Most US jurisdictions require a cross-examiner to
723:. If the witness's prior conviction was for a crime not involving dishonesty or false statement, evidence of the conviction is admissible for impeachment only for felonies; misdemeanors are inadmissible.
813:, in turn, led to a decision allowing similar impeachment by physical evidence that had been suppressed in the same case as having been seized from defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
753:, the Victims Bill of Rights passed by in 1982, permits parties to use both cross-examination and extrinsic evidence about specific instances of prior misconduct in criminal cases to impeach a witness.
774:
The witness is induced to contradict their own testimony during the present proceeding. That differs from inconsistent statements above. Inconsistent statements involve statements made out-of-court (
747:
Under
California Evidence Code Section 787, a party may not use either cross-examination or extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness by showing specific instances of prior misconduct in civil cases.
817:
reliability of the witness so the jury is instructed by the judge not to use the impeachment evidence as proof of any facts but only to consider whether the witness in question should be believed.
614:
the witness about facts that reflect poorly on the witness's credibility or, in some cases, by introducing extrinsic evidence that reflects negatively on the witness's truthfulness or knowledge.
668:
A party may impeach a witness by introducing those of his prior statements that are inconsistent with his current testimony at trial. In a minority of jurisdictions that follow FRE 801, the
230:
669:
656:
If a witness is accused of bias, and there is an opportunity to cross-examine during the current trial, any statements made at a previous trial/hearing and which are
1056:
Mosteller, Robert P.; Broun, Kenneth S.; Dix, George E.; Imwinkelried, Edward J.; Kaye, D. H.; Swift, Eleanor; Harris, Jasmine E.; Kinports, Kit, eds. (July 2022).
766:, allow the witness on the stand (in most cases) to consider competence as one of many factors that juries are to consider to determine credibility of the witness.
727:
the probative value of the impeachment (demonstrating the defendant witness's propensity to lie) outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
1124:
809:
decision led to a ruling that a defendant can be impeached by his confession even if the confession was obtained in violation of his
Miranda rights.
731:
task of proving that the probative value of the felony conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.
693:
A prior inconsistent statement offered solely for impeachment purposes is admissible regardless of whether it satisfies those requirements.
657:
1012:
89:
61:
507:
1065:
750:
68:
42:
1139:
720:
108:
75:
778:) or in prior proceedings. Contradiction involves the witness saying two different things in the same testimony.
879:
611:
57:
714:
Additionally, a party may impeach a witness for "bad" character by introducing evidence of the witness's prior
46:
679:
the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;
617:
In
Pennsylvania, the procedure for determining whether a testifying defendant may be impeached is known as a
744:
the character for untruthfulness of a previous witness that the current witness has testified about before.
644:
Courts permit parties to cross-examine a witness in order to impeach that witness based on demonstration of
629:
A party may impeach a witness in the US by introducing evidence of any of the following (remembered via the
415:
380:
283:
500:
390:
763:
599:
540:
293:
182:
1025:
Victim's Bill of Rights §28(f), as
Incorporated into the California Constitution at Art. 1 §28(f)(4)
847:
420:
594:
If the witness surprised the party who called him by giving damaging testimony against that party.
82:
35:
375:
235:
197:
177:
1060:. Practitioner treatise series. Vol. 1 (8th ed.). Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters. § 45.
653:
the purpose of showing interest or bias because of them is not within the rule's prohibition.
493:
356:
346:
250:
220:
215:
535:, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a
331:
316:
259:
172:
167:
152:
8:
685:
the witness is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement. (801(d)(1), 2014,
472:
321:
278:
240:
16:
Process of calling into question the credibility of an individual testifying in a trial
1061:
801:
Another example is more extreme. Suppose the defendant is on trial for possession of
544:
437:
400:
395:
341:
326:
225:
649:
610:
In the US, a party has the option of discrediting a witness through impeachment by
432:
410:
385:
311:
288:
268:
162:
1000:
988:
976:
964:
952:
940:
916:
902:
866:
584:
405:
273:
206:
192:
591:
If the witness were one that the party was required by law to call as a witness.
528:
351:
245:
124:
1024:
1133:
532:
187:
157:
977:
FRE 609(a)(1)(B), Cornell
University Law School, Legal Information Institute
1042:
481:
467:
989:
F.R.E. 609(b), Cornell
University Law School, Legal Information Institute
965:
F.R.E. 609(a), Cornell
University Law School, Legal Information Institute
953:
F.R.E. 405(a), Cornell
University Law School, Legal Information Institute
675:
A prior inconsistent statement is admissible as substantive evidence if
536:
786:
715:
602:, Rule 607 permits any party to attack the credibility of any witness.
556:
447:
426:
1001:
FRE 608(b), Cornell
University Law School, Legal Information Institute
903:
F.R.E. 610, Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute
867:
F.R.E. 607, Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute
781:
660:
with the testimony at the present trial are admissible, not hearsay.
576:
572:
476:
147:
24:
850: – Legal term for one who testifies as a witness for the state
630:
457:
672:
may be used not only to impeach but also as substantive evidence.
775:
598:
The rule has been eliminated in many jurisdictions. Under the US
560:
365:
302:
1119:
802:
1055:
645:
462:
921:
Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute
524:
132:
914:
49:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
1131:
917:"Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(1) and (1)(B)"
824:
682:the witness testifies at the present trial; and
588:(such as the witness refusing to co-operate).
501:
550:
543:contain the rules governing impeachment in
785:An attorney impeaching a witness during a
508:
494:
663:
109:Learn how and when to remove this message
780:
738:
1132:
1036:
47:adding citations to reliable sources
18:
941:Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 613
709:
13:
14:
1151:
1113:
1037:Graham, Michael (November 2023).
1125:Impeachment in the United States
1118:
769:
23:
1098:
1086:
1074:
1049:
1030:
1018:
1006:
994:
34:needs additional citations for
1041:. Vol. 4 (9th ed.).
982:
970:
958:
946:
934:
908:
896:
872:
860:
1:
1013:California Evidence Code §787
854:
825:Bolstering and rehabilitating
756:
624:
579:to the stand, or vice versa).
1039:Handbook of Federal Evidence
700:
670:prior inconsistent statement
416:Declaration against interest
284:Self-authenticating document
7:
915:Federal Rules of Evidence.
841:
10:
1156:
1140:United States evidence law
689:by Muller and Kirkpatrick)
605:
764:Federal Rules of Evidence
687:Federal Rules of Evidence
600:Federal Rules of Evidence
541:Federal Rules of Evidence
294:Hague Evidence Convention
183:Eyewitness identification
880:"Commonwealth v. Bighum"
551:Parties that may impeach
421:Present sense impression
231:Public policy exclusions
1105:United States v. Havens
1081:Walder v. United States
721:misdemeanor or a felony
639:
567:If the witness were an
790:
664:Inconsistent statement
198:Consciousness of guilt
1127:at Wikimedia Commons
1107:, 446 U.S. 620 (1980)
1095:, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)
1058:McCormick on evidence
848:Turn state's evidence
784:
739:No extrinsic evidence
347:Recorded recollection
58:"Witness impeachment"
1083:, 347 U.S. 62 (1954)
582:If the witness were
381:in United States law
43:improve this article
521:Witness impeachment
221:Laying a foundation
1093:Harris v. New York
791:
477:trusts and estates
357:Dead Man's Statute
322:Direct examination
279:Best evidence rule
1123:Media related to
1067:978-1-7319-2036-2
545:US federal courts
518:
517:
438:Implied assertion
401:Dying declaration
396:Excited utterance
342:Proffer agreement
327:Cross-examination
140:Types of evidence
119:
118:
111:
93:
1147:
1122:
1108:
1102:
1096:
1090:
1084:
1078:
1072:
1071:
1053:
1047:
1046:
1034:
1028:
1022:
1016:
1010:
1004:
998:
992:
986:
980:
974:
968:
962:
956:
950:
944:
938:
932:
931:
929:
927:
912:
906:
900:
894:
893:
891:
890:
876:
870:
864:
710:Prior conviction
650:lay a foundation
510:
503:
496:
433:Learned treatise
411:Ancient document
391:Business records
289:Ancient document
269:Chain of custody
121:
120:
114:
107:
103:
100:
94:
92:
51:
27:
19:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1130:
1129:
1116:
1111:
1103:
1099:
1091:
1087:
1079:
1075:
1068:
1054:
1050:
1035:
1031:
1023:
1019:
1011:
1007:
999:
995:
987:
983:
975:
971:
963:
959:
951:
947:
939:
935:
925:
923:
913:
909:
901:
897:
888:
886:
878:
877:
873:
865:
861:
857:
844:
827:
772:
759:
741:
712:
703:
666:
642:
627:
612:cross-examining
608:
553:
514:
406:Party admission
274:Judicial notice
216:Burden of proof
158:Real (physical)
115:
104:
98:
95:
52:
50:
40:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1153:
1143:
1142:
1115:
1114:External links
1112:
1110:
1109:
1097:
1085:
1073:
1066:
1048:
1029:
1017:
1005:
993:
981:
969:
957:
945:
933:
907:
895:
871:
858:
856:
853:
852:
851:
843:
840:
826:
823:
771:
768:
758:
755:
740:
737:
711:
708:
702:
699:
691:
690:
683:
680:
665:
662:
641:
638:
626:
623:
607:
604:
596:
595:
592:
589:
580:
552:
549:
516:
515:
513:
512:
505:
498:
490:
487:
486:
485:
484:
479:
470:
465:
460:
452:
451:
443:
442:
441:
440:
435:
430:
423:
418:
413:
408:
403:
398:
393:
388:
383:
378:
376:in English law
370:
369:
368:and exceptions
362:
361:
360:
359:
354:
352:Expert witness
349:
344:
339:
334:
329:
324:
319:
314:
306:
305:
299:
298:
297:
296:
291:
286:
281:
276:
271:
263:
262:
260:Authentication
256:
255:
254:
253:
248:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
218:
210:
209:
203:
202:
201:
200:
195:
190:
185:
180:
175:
170:
165:
160:
155:
150:
142:
141:
137:
136:
128:
127:
117:
116:
31:
29:
22:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1152:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1135:
1128:
1126:
1121:
1106:
1101:
1094:
1089:
1082:
1077:
1069:
1063:
1059:
1052:
1044:
1040:
1033:
1026:
1021:
1014:
1009:
1002:
997:
990:
985:
978:
973:
966:
961:
954:
949:
942:
937:
922:
918:
911:
904:
899:
885:
881:
875:
868:
863:
859:
849:
846:
845:
839:
835:
831:
822:
818:
814:
812:
808:
804:
799:
795:
788:
783:
779:
777:
770:Contradiction
767:
765:
754:
752:
751:Proposition 8
748:
745:
736:
732:
728:
724:
722:
717:
707:
698:
694:
688:
684:
681:
678:
677:
676:
673:
671:
661:
659:
654:
651:
647:
637:
635:
632:
622:
620:
615:
613:
603:
601:
593:
590:
587:
586:
581:
578:
574:
571:(such as the
570:
569:adverse party
566:
565:
564:
562:
558:
548:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:United States
530:
526:
522:
511:
506:
504:
499:
497:
492:
491:
489:
488:
483:
480:
478:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
456:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
444:
439:
436:
434:
431:
429:
428:
424:
422:
419:
417:
414:
412:
409:
407:
404:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
373:
372:
371:
367:
364:
363:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
323:
320:
318:
315:
313:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:
301:
300:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
280:
277:
275:
272:
270:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
258:
257:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
205:
204:
199:
196:
194:
191:
189:
188:Genetic (DNA)
186:
184:
181:
179:
178:Demonstrative
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:
156:
154:
151:
149:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
138:
134:
130:
129:
126:
123:
122:
113:
110:
102:
99:February 2010
91:
88:
84:
81:
77:
74:
70:
67:
63:
60: –
59:
55:
54:Find sources:
48:
44:
38:
37:
32:This article
30:
26:
21:
20:
1117:
1104:
1100:
1092:
1088:
1080:
1076:
1057:
1051:
1043:Thomson West
1038:
1032:
1020:
1008:
996:
984:
972:
960:
948:
936:
926:February 14,
924:. Retrieved
920:
910:
898:
887:. Retrieved
883:
874:
862:
836:
832:
828:
819:
815:
810:
806:
800:
796:
792:
789:competition.
773:
760:
749:
746:
742:
733:
729:
725:
713:
704:
695:
692:
686:
674:
667:
655:
643:
633:
628:
618:
616:
609:
597:
583:
575:calling the
568:
554:
520:
519:
482:Criminal law
425:
336:
251:Similar fact
131:Part of the
105:
96:
86:
79:
72:
65:
53:
41:Please help
36:verification
33:
386:Confessions
337:Impeachment
226:Materiality
173:Inculpatory
168:Exculpatory
153:Documentary
1045:. § 607:8.
889:2017-07-21
884:Justia Law
855:References
787:mock trial
757:Competency
716:conviction
658:consistent
625:Categories
557:common law
555:Under the
448:common law
427:Res gestae
312:Competence
236:Spoliation
69:newspapers
830:witness.
701:Character
621:hearing.
577:defendant
573:plaintiff
523:, in the
317:Privilege
303:Witnesses
241:Character
207:Relevance
148:Testimony
1134:Category
842:See also
631:mnemonic
529:evidence
468:Property
458:Contract
332:Redirect
125:Evidence
776:hearsay
606:Methods
585:hostile
561:England
531:of the
366:Hearsay
163:Digital
83:scholar
1064:
811:Harris
807:Walder
803:heroin
619:Bighum
539:. The
446:Other
135:series
85:
78:
71:
64:
56:
634:BICCC
537:trial
473:Wills
450:areas
246:Habit
90:JSTOR
76:books
1062:ISBN
928:2012
646:bias
640:Bias
463:Tort
193:Lies
62:news
636:):
559:of
527:of
525:law
133:law
45:by
1136::
919:.
882:.
547:.
475:,
1070:.
1015:.
1003:.
991:.
979:.
967:.
955:.
943:.
930:.
905:.
892:.
869:.
509:e
502:t
495:v
112:)
106:(
101:)
97:(
87:·
80:·
73:·
66:·
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
