Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Notes texas still has rule that impeaching counsel

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: then permitted to impeach him with his failure to mention for two weeks following the killing that he acted in self-defense. Statements by an accused that were taken in violation of Miranda, and thus rendered inadmissible as substantive evidence, may nevertheless be used to impeach the accused's testimony at trial. But note, post-arrest SILENCE may not be used to impeach testimony at trial. So STATEMENTS made after a Miranda warning may be used But SILENCE made after a Miranda warning may not be used! Silence BEFORE a Miranda warning may be used. Foundation requirement 613(a) Jettisons the Rule in The queen's case, which required the cross-examiner to show the witness her written inconsistent statements before examining her about it Is considered bad because it gives the witness time to come up w/ an excuse for the prior inconsistent statement. 613(a) does provide however, that on request the contents of the statement must be disclosed to opposing counsel. Foundation requirement 613(b) Extrinsic evidence may be offered as to the prior statement but two requirements must b...
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