Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
16. The testimony of the witness is
The prosecutor then calls a witness, the manager of the company for which the friend works, to testify that although the friend had been first employed five years earlier and is now employed by the company, there had been a three-year period during which he had not been so employed.
At the defendant's trial for burglary, one of the defendant's friends supported the defendant's alibi that they were fishing together at the time of the crime. On cross-examination, the friend was asked whether his statement on a credit card application that he had worked for his present employer for the last five years was false. The friend denied that the statement was false.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Under Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 608(b), regarding a witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, «extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (i) the witness; or (ii) another witness whose character the witness being cross-examined has testified about» (emphasis added).
C is correct. The witness's testimony is inadmissible because it is improper to impeach the witness's character for truthfulness by extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct («prior bad acts») under FRE 608(b). The Rule only allows inquiry into specific instances of conduct on cross-examination, if the court determines the evidence is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness of the witness.
A is incorrect. Although it is true that the friend's credibility is at issue based on his testimony regarding the defendant's alibi, the prosecutor is still not permitted to use extrinsic evidence to show the friend was untruthful on his credit card application.
B is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. Even if the friend's denial did operate to «open the door» to an attack on his credibility for truthfulness, the FRE still do not permit impeachment by extrinsic evidence via the false credit card application, let alone allowing such evidence as a matter of right.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The witness testimony is inadmissible, but not because the misstatement by the friend could have been based on a misunderstanding. The weight of the extrinsic evidence in proving the friend's false credit card application is irrelevant to whether it is admissible in the first place. The prosecution cannot use extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to attack the friend's credibility, even if the friend denied it on cross-examination.