Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

federal rule has paragraph about self incrimination

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: vorable that you know that the other side is going to ask your witness, you do it first on direct (always). Same thing happens in voir dire. However, if you introduce the evidence, you can't complain that it was admitted; Even if the trial court had unequivocally ruled upon a motion in limine that the conviction would be admissible. Note 4: Ruling on motion in limine If a court denies a defendant's motion in limine seeking to exclude impeachment use of a prior conviction, and the defendant decides not to testify, the defendant may not raise on appeal the validity of the trial court's ruling on the mition in limine. IN other words, the defendant must testify and suffer the impeachment, over timely trial objection, in order to have a complaint on appeal. Why should the defendant have the right to elicit this on direct and it not be a waiver? o Want to convey the impression to the jury that your life is an open book, but that's bologna, because behind the jury's back you have been fighting tooth and nail to keep this out. So h...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online