NCJ Number
85502
Date Published
Unknown
Length
0 pages
Annotation
The lecturer discusses strategies prosecuting attorneys can employ during cross-examination to impeach witnesses (i.e., to attack their credibility).
Abstract
Cross-examiners should attempt to impeach only if a witness has hurt their case and if they have impeaching evidence. They should not cross-examine if no damaging evidence has been given and should not harass witnesses with questions on evidence that will not constitute impeachment. To impeach, the attorney must be able to show witness's motivation, bias, prejudice, or interest in case outcome, as well as a general reputation for untruthfulness or lack of credibility. Credibility can be attacked with evidence of contradictory prior statments or with other witnesses presenting contradictory testimony. Attacks upon a witness's general reputation for truth and veracity can only be used against a defendant if evidence of good reputation is first brought up by the defense. Impeaching an attorney's own witness is done by expressing surprise and should not be confused with the technique for refreshing recollection, which is also done by producing the witness's prior statement but not as substantive evidence. Evidence of prior inconsistent statements must be relevant and substantial, and a foundation must be laid for it. An impeached witness can be reinstated with evidence of a prior consistent statement, if the witness can justify motivation for the intervening inconsistency. Michelson v. United States set the precedent for character testimony. Cross-examiners must be skilled in phrasing questions so that they elicit testimony regarding reputation in the community rather than the witness's personal opinion. The Federal Code has no impeachment statute; these procedures rely on the common law. According to the Luck doctrine, the judge has discretion over prior conviction admissibility. Audience questions relate to hypothetical cross-examination situations and attorneys' strategies.