Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
== Impeachment == | == Impeachment == | ||
| − | Impeachment is an allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit. Impeachment may be indirect, as through a second witness or presentation of other physical evidence or direct, typically in cross-examination or even direct examination (if permissible.) | + | Impeachment is an allegation, supported by proof, that a witness who has been examined is unworthy of credit. Impeachment may be indirect, as through a second witness or presentation of other physical evidence or direct, typically in cross-examination or even direct examination (if permissible.)Cross-Examination is one of the primary places that a defense attorney can impeach a witness. Generally, a defense attorney may impeach prosecution witnesses subject to limitations of the evidence code. Under certain circumstances, an attorney may even impeach their own witnesses. |
| − | |||
| − | Cross-Examination is one of the primary places that a defense attorney can impeach a witness. Generally, a defense attorney may impeach prosecution witnesses subject to limitations of the evidence code. Under certain circumstances, an attorney may even impeach their own witnesses. | ||
When preparing for a case, imagine how any one of these areas might impact the witness's credibility: | When preparing for a case, imagine how any one of these areas might impact the witness's credibility: | ||
| Line 147: | Line 145: | ||
=== Prior convictions and bad acts === | === Prior convictions and bad acts === | ||
| − | The admissibility of prior convictions and bad acts varies from country to country. However, a defense attorney should always keep these in mind. | + | The admissibility of prior convictions and bad acts varies from country to country. However, a defense attorney should always keep these in mind. In the United States the rules regarding the admissibility of prior convictions as impeachment evidence is complex. However, as a general rule convictions that go directly to honesty of a witness are the most powerful. Prior bad acts are also great fodder for cross-examination if they are admissible in court. In the United States, prior bad acts are not admissible to show conformity with conduct on a certain occasion. Thus, evidence of prior burglaries cannot be used to prove a defendant is guilty of burglary on a certain occasion. However, prior bad acts may be admissible in the United States for other, so-called "non propensity" reasons: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan knowledge, identity or absence of mistake. The rules of evidence surrounding prior bad acts will vary greatly from jurisdiction and the defense attorney should study these carefully if the client has any history of bad acts that could be an issue at trial. |
| − | |||
| − | In the United States the rules regarding the admissibility of prior convictions as impeachment evidence is complex. However, as a general rule convictions that go directly to honesty of a witness are the most powerful. | ||
| − | |||
| − | Prior bad acts are also great fodder for cross-examination if they are admissible in court. | ||
| − | |||
| − | In the United States, prior bad acts are not admissible to show conformity with conduct on a certain occasion. Thus, evidence of prior burglaries cannot be used to prove a defendant is guilty of burglary on a certain occasion. | ||
| − | |||
| − | However, prior bad acts may be admissible in the United States for other, so-called "non propensity" reasons: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan knowledge, identity or absence of mistake. | ||
| − | |||
| − | The rules of evidence surrounding prior bad acts will vary greatly from jurisdiction and the defense attorney should study these carefully if the client has any history of bad acts that could be an issue at trial. | ||
=== Prior dishonest Conduct === | === Prior dishonest Conduct === | ||
