Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

And these parties want to offer extrinsic evidence

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: nvolve criminality of other things, would not be pertinent to truthfulness. o Arkansas has narrowed it down to only things that are CRIMES would qualify under 609(a)(2) thefts are not, would have to be an act that directly involves lying, but Wellborn doesn't think this is a particularly common limitation. Note 2 on page 346: Act vs. arrest or charge Important! Have to ask the witness did you do this?? Not were you charged or arrested with the act? Would be hearsay, bringing the arrestor's statements into evidence (hearsay) when you say where you arrested If the witness denies it, that's it, no extrinsic evidence may be brought in. Important point from this: A witness may still invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to inquiries about specific acts directed solely at establishing the witness' untruthful character. (??) SMITH v. STATE [Impeaching a Witness: Truthfulness of Character Specific Acts of Misconduct FRE 608(b)] Facts/Procedural Posture: Smith convicted of rape, statutory rape, child mo...
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