Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

The facts of webster are the rare exception to that

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: e impeachment should be allowed. o Ex: Prior statement by witness inconsistent with declarant's testimony, that was given under oath. 801(d)(1) (A) o Ex: Prior statement by witness to doctor 803(4) statement for purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. o UNITED STATES v. WEBSTER [Impeaching One's Own Witness w/ Prior Inconsistent Statements cannot be mere subterfuge for otherwise inadmissible hearsay] Facts: Issue: Webster convicted of aiding and abetting the robbery of a federally insured bank. Government called bank robber, King, as a witness against Webster. King gave testimony that if believed would have exculpated Webster, whereupon gov. introduced prior inconsistent statements that King had given the FBI inculpating Webster. Court instructed the jury that it could consider the statements only for the purposes of impeachment but Webster argues that this wasn't good enough. Should the evidence of the prior inconsistent statements have been excluded entirely? Holding: The trial court did not err in admitting the prior inconsistent statements. A good faith standard applies if the pro...
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