Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Interrogation was tape recorded all the witnesses

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: ents of Rule 613, but a limiting instruction must be given upon request "to explain to the jury that the impeachment evidence is only to reflect on the witness' credibility and is not to be used to establish facts." Note: Inconsistency is not limited to diametrically opposed answers but may be found in evasive answers, inability to recall, silence, or chances of position. Note: A party may not call a witness for the primary purpose of impeaching the witness with prior statements that would be otherwise inadmissible. (United States v. Webster see later) Prior Inconsistent statements "other proceeding": The term "other proceeding" includes grand jury. It does NOT extend to "station house" interrogations by investigating law enforcement officers, even if the statement is written and sworn. UNITED STATES v. CASTRO-AYON [Prior inconsistent statement by witness (hearsay exception) what qualifies as "other proceeding" under FRE 801(d)(1)(A)?] Facts/Procedural Posture: Casto-Ayon ap...
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