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.
39. Should the court allow evidence of the conviction?
A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for assault and battery. At trial, the court has allowed the plaintiff to introduce the deposition testimony of a witness, now deceased, that he was with the plaintiff at the time of the incident. The defendant now seeks to impeach the testimony of the witness with his 13-year-old conviction for burglary (for which he served 18 months in prison) for breaking into the home of a neighbor while she was away and taking some of her valuable jewelry.
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
In this case, the court will consider factors such as the impeachment value of the crime, the age of the conviction, and the centrality of the credibility in the case. Here, the prior conviction is more than 10 years old and has little relevance to the case at hand. Therefore, the conviction will likely not be admissible unless its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
A is incorrect. Former testimony of a now unavailable witness may be admissible if the testimony was given under oath and with the opportunity to cross-examine. The party against whom such a statement is admitted may still impeach the credibility of the witness, even though he or she did not testify in court. The credibility of the witness may be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible if the witness had testified. Therefore, the witness may still be impeached even without testifying.
C is incorrect. Although it is true that prior convictions may be used to show the untruthful character of a witness, the conviction must meet the criteria for admissibility. In this case, the conviction is more than 10 years old and unrelated to the case. Therefore, the conviction will likely not be admissible unless its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
D is incorrect. Prior convictions involving crimes of dishonesty are automatically admissible because they are considered highly probative. Crimes of dishonesty are those which involve an element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification. Courts have ruled that theft offenses are not crimes of dishonesty for this rule. In this case, burglary is not considered a crime of dishonesty.