Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

United states v lindstrom impeaching the witness

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: oss-examination. However, impeaching witness cannot say "no because he lied under another before.."... that brings in specific instances; must only say no! That is a simple opinion! UNITED STATES v. MEDICAL THERAPY SCIENCES INC. [Impeaching a Witness: Direct Reputation or Opinion evidence of Character for Truthfulness FRE 608(a)] Facts/Procedural Posture: Berman convicted of having filed false claims to obtain Medicare payments. Berman contends that his convictions should be reversed because the trial judge permitted the Gov. to present character witnesses to bolster the credibility of a fact witness in the case. Berman claims that a new trial is required in view of the fact that Russell's credibility was crucial under the defense theory of the case i.e. that it was Russell, not Berman, who perpetrated the frauds. Berman claims that Russell's character for truthfulness had not been attacked within the meaning of Rule 608. Cross-examination elicited only matters of Russell's BIAS in favor of the government and against Berman, did not elicit m...
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