Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Sole identification witness at trial was priscilla

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: atement during cross, so long as you don't allow the witness to go home. And then can bring in extrinsic evidence as to how the inconsistent statement, so long as the witness can be called again, to negate or explain. Prior consistent statements are generally not admissible in response to impeachment by inconsistent statements since they do not rebut the attack; the inconsistency remains, and telling one version more than another is not very impressive! o Prior consistent statements are admissible only in situations governed by Rule 801(d)(1)(B): "to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive"; and in those situations the prior statement must antedate the alleged motive or influence. If the contradiction does not concern a collateral matter, extrinsic evidence may be offered to support the denial or explanation, subject to Rule 403. If the type of impeachment is one regarded as "collateral" so that the impeaching party is limited to cross-examination concerning the matter (no extrinsic evidence allowed), rehabilitation will similarly be limited to redirect examination of the witness (no extrinsic evidence...
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