Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

They may however in the discretion of the court or

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: eachment evidence about Williams to closely scrutinize his credibility in the case. Highly probable that any error in excluding Williams' ABPO conviction had no impact on the verdict. Notes: Good demonstration about how the distinction between the balancing tests (between criminal accused and other witnesses), can be outcome determinative. Witnesses other than a criminal accused o Probative value must not be substantially outweighed by 403 considerations of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury, undue delay, etc... Criminal accused o If it's the accused, there is a more protective balancing test, burden is on the prosecution to persuade the court that the probative value on credibility outweighs the danger of showing that he is a bad man! Hard test to pass! Note 2: Details of the crime Courts generally restrict impeachment to eliciting the name of the crime, when and where convicted, and the sentence imposed; details of the crime are not permitted unless the witness exercises the option during examination may open the door to cross-examination concerning details of the crime!. Note 3: "Removing the sting" by elicitation on direct IT is just common sense trial strategy that anything unfa...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online