Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, 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:
Specific instances of crimes one is convicted for cannot be admitted under FRE 608, only FRE 609.
Saying that one is mistaken is not saying that one is lying or that he is a liar. It is just impeachment by contradiction and only possibly prohibited by FRE 403's test for unfair prejudice or wasting time.
A collateral matter is one that would not reasonably call into question the accuracy of the witness's testimony if it is not true.
Non-collateral contradiction is when extrinsic evidence calls into question the truth of a statement, such as by bias.
If extrinsic evidence does not reasonably call into question the accuracy of a witness's testimony, it is collateral evidence and not admissible under FRE 403.
Because the court does not want a bunch of mini-trials over little, barely-related matters which would just waste time.
You can still ask the question of whether that is true or not though.
It is possible for one to have previously remembered something, but not know it now without lying. They could have forgotten. Forgetfulness is not an inconsistent statement unless it is faked.
If punishable by more than a year, it is admissible in civil cases or criminal cases where the witness is not a defendant subject only to FRE 403.
If punishable by more than a year, it is admissible in criminal cases where the witness is a defendant unless its prejudicial effect to that defendant outweighs the probative value of the evidence. (It does not have to be substantially outweighed.)
If the crime involved a dishonest act as an element, it should be admitted regardless of the punishment therefor.
such as perjury or subordination of perjury, false statement, criminal fraud, embezzlement or false pretense, or any other offense, in the nature of crimen falsi the commission of which involves some element of untruthfulness, deceit, or falsification bearing on the accused's propensity to testify truthfully.
If the conviction or release was more than ten years ago (whichever is later), its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, must substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect. (Reverse of FRE 403)
Reconfinement for parole violations counts as imprisonment for the original conviction.
The five factors from Brewer are used in a balancing test to determine admissibility:
The nature of the crime (Its bearing on honesty and veracity)
The time of conviction and the witness's subsequent history
Similarity between the past crime and the charged crime
Cuts against admissibility, as it increases the risk of unfair prejudice
Importance of defendant's testimony
Cuts against admissibility of the crime, as the defendant should be allowed to testify freely in his defense
The centrality of the credibility issue
Cuts towards admissibility
If the defense brings up a crime, he loses the right to appeal the crime's admissibility, even if the judge had issued a motion allowing it already.
Evidence of a juvenile adjudication is admissible only if it is in a criminal case, the adjudication was of a witness other than the defendant, an adult’s conviction for that offense would be admissible to attack the adult’s credibility, and admitting the evidence is necessary to fairly determine guilt or innocence.
Leading questions are generally prohibited in direct examination but are allowed at the judge's discretion as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony, usually for non-substantive things.
Objecting to leading questions is often stupid because they are so easy to fix.
Any writing may be provided to a witness to refresh his recollection if he first says that he does not recall.
A witness cannot read something out loud though. That's hearsay.
The opposing party can inspect, cross-examine, and admit into evidence a refreshing document under FRE 612.
The proponent party might be able to read an unsuccessful refreshing document into evidence under FRE 803(5).
Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.FRE 613.
Extrinsic evidence is only allowed when a witness says he does not know if the judge believes that the witness is faking his lack of knowledge.
The judge may call witnesses himself, but this is very rarely done. FRE 614.
A party or the court itself may have other witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. FRE 615.