Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

O arkansas has narrowed it down to only things that

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: ry (cannot base his queries solely on hunch or innuendo) Counsel is bound by the witness' answer. Extrinsic evidence to prove the specific act is inadmissible. Ex: D asks a gov. witness whether he had previously made a false claim for insurance. When the witness answers no, D cannot introduce extrinsic evidence that the gov. witness was previously charged with the offense. Inquiry into a witness' specific acts is permissible only if the acts are probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness: Prior use of false name, filing false tax returns, forgery, etc. Not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness: attempted murder, drug use, speeding, assault, etc. 608(a)(2): Evidence of a witness' truthful character may not be offered unless an attack has first been made on the witness' veracity!! Opposing counsel often object to such evidence as "bolstering" but the more precise objection is that such evidence violates 608(a)(2) Purpose of the rule: Don't want to put the witness on trial...that's stupid. Important to note that Rule 608 addresses...
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