Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

In order to reduce this dangerous abuse the common

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: istent statement. Danger exists that a party might call a witness who once made statements favorable to its cause, even though the party knows that the witness has had a change of heart and will not testify favorably, solely so that it can impeach the witness with his prior inconsistent statements. Thus, in the guise of impeachment, a party might get the prior statements before the jury in the hope that the jury will impermissibly use them as substantive evidence. o Objectionable under 403: Opponent can argue persuasively that in such instances the probative value of the evidence (as impeachment) is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (that the jury will use the prior statements as substantive evidence. Impeachment may not be used as a "mere subterfuge" or for the primary purpose of placing otherwise inadmissible evidence before the jury. Note: If the prior inconsistent statement is defined as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) or falls within a hearsay exception, the jury may use it as both substantive and impeachment evidence and th...
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