Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

in general trial courts discretion regarding the

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: secutor calls the witness to the stand believing in good faith that he will give consistent testimony with his previous statements, when the testimony does not materialize, he/she may use the prior inconsistent statements to impeach the witness. o Surprise and harm are not required! Weird! Note: Defendant may always argue that the probative value of the evidence offered to impeach the witness is clearly outweighed by the prejudicial impact it might have on the jury, because the jury would have difficulty confining use of the evidence to impeachment. Notes: Rule 607 Who May Impeach The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. 801(d)(1)(A) has close relationship to 607 801(d)(1)(A) just because the declarant is now a witness doesn't clear the hearsay taint of their prior out of court statements. The only inconsistent statements that qualify as substantive evidence are those that were made under oath, subject to perjury, and at a formal proceeding has to be prior inconsistent testimony of some sort. If the prior i...
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