Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Definition for a Collateral Matter
|
"Independent Relevance Test": Whether it could be used for any purpose other than contradicting a witness.
|
|
|
Why does it matter if it is collateral or not?
|
If it is collateral, you can't bring on extrinsic evidence to prove it. (Example of the witness saying black car, you can't prove it is white with other evidence.)
|
|
|
When Extrinsic Evidence is allowed to contradict a part of witness's testimony?
|
1-It is not independently relevant to the substantive issues in the case.
2-To show bias or lack of sensory capacity in the witness. 3-Extrinsic evidence of sensory impairment is never collateral. |
|
|
What is a "statement" for hearsay purposes, compared to "assertion," "direction," etc.?
|
See 801(d).
|
|
|
What's the deal with Grand Jury Testimony?
|
See rule 801(d)(1)(A). Grand jury testimony is not hearsay and is therefore admissable, if it is inconsistent with trial testimony.
|
|
|
What about a written statement given to an outside investigator?
|
May be admissable to show inconsistent statement BECAUSE it is NOT hearsay. It is not offered to prove the truth of what is in the written statement, it is offered so show disagreement between the past statement and the trial statement. (There should be limiting instruction, only for credibility/)
|
|
|
Note on Impeachment
|
Pure impeachment may have little probative value as to the material elements of the offense. Therefore this is a good time to exclude evidence under 403 and 611, bc it is more prejudicial than probative.
|
|
|
Can prior consistent statements be admitted under 801(d)(1)(B), simply because the opposing party has presented prior inconsistent statements.
|
Maybe but not always. If the inconsistent statement is part of an attack that counts as recent fabrication, improper influence or motive, THEN it is admissable. If not, it shouldn't but a court may allow it anyways. (Don Reed Trial)
|
|
|
Prior Consistent Statements
|
Are arguably admissable because they are not hearsay, in that they are not offered to prove the matter asserted, they are introduced to prove that witness has told consistent story. So NOT hearsay. (Still may fail under 403 test if too prejudicial.)
|
|
|
Impeachment by inconsistent statement effect:
|
Does NOT automatically open the door for rehabilitation with evidence of consistent statement. Depends on the nature of the challenge with the inconsistent statement.
|
