Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Issue did the trial court err in ordering gustafson

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: d not result in conviction! o Not very probative, and good faith basis is vague o If it's not a criminal conviction under 609 there is no reason to go into this stuff (leads to a side trial about the witness' "truthfulness" based on whether or not he/she actually committed the specified act!) Federal Rule has paragraph about self-incrimination w/ respect to specific instances, b/c these question are not permitted in Texas, the Texas rule omits this paragraph! Rule 608(b) governs the use of specific acts that did not result in convictions, but that may establish a witness' untruthful nature: A witness may, in the court's discretion, be cross-examined about specific acts that are probative of the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness subject to several limitations: Counsel may ask the witness about the specific act but may not ask whether the witness was arrested or charged for the act? a. Proper question: Did you cash stolen checks? b. Improper question: Were you arrested for cashing stolen checks Counsel must have a good faith basis for making the inqui...
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.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online