This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ical matter they are 99% there because they talk about "good faith" and subterfuge... o If you are not surprised and or are not damaged, it's bad faith and it's a subterfuge. The facts of Webster are the rare exception to that. The prosecution displayed good faith but there was no surprise. "I don't know what he's going to say..." meaning nothing is going to be a surprise. She asked permission to voir dire but the opposing counsel objected (bad move). So she calls him, and he says Webster didn't do it, and then she is allowed to impeach him. o This is a very unusual case where you can have good faith without surprise because of the way this developed. If the prior statement qualifies as substantive evidence (is not hearsay etc.) then you don't have this problem. If it falls within one of the hearsay exceptions, or if it is prior inconsistent testimony that qualifies under (a) or if it is hid under (c). WITNESSES - MODE AND ORDER OF INTERROGATION AND PRESENTATION [FRE 611] Witnesses: Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation Control by Court [FRE 611(a)]
FRE 611(a): Mode and Order of Interrogation...
View Full Document