Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Note on page 126 missouri pacific v vlach impeachment

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: says a,b,c on direct and then the party who called the witness wants to call in more witnesses who says that besides that she said the same things before and before...well so what? Presumably she came in and told the truth, the fact that she said it on other occasions doesn't matter....isn't relevant...so need a particular reason for these statements to get in. Federal Rules = Identical to common law; don't want to hear about consistent statement unless it tends to rebut a specific impeachment attack....the specific impeachment attack that we are talking about are Recent fabrication Improper influence or motive If the impeachment suggests that the witness has told the story she's told because she's had some corrupt motive to lie, because she has a grudge, because she was bribed...because she was threatened...because she was suggestively questioned, then if we have a statement by the witness consistent with their testimony that inundates the alleged motivation to fabricate, it may be introduced. Campbell v. State murder case out of Houston....witness im...
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