Prior inconsistent statements are admissible to impeach and prior consistent statements can be used to rehabilitate a witness who has been impeached. Discuss the benefit of using these statements at trial versus the confusion they may cause the jurors
What will be an ideal response?
Evidence introduced for impeachment and rehabilitation cannot be considered as evidence that the crime was committed or that the defendant is guilty. The jury is instructed that the statements should be used for the sole purpose of evaluating the credibility of the witness. This is particularly confusing when prior inconsistent statements introduced during cross-examination are followed by prior consistent statements during re-direct examination. Even more complexity is introduced, as far as jurors are concerned, when another witness is called to establish the prior statements. The jury may lose sight of relevant evidence that can be used to convict.
An attorney should carefully evaluate potential impact prior to introducing either prior inconsistent or prior consistent statements. The risk of confusion may outweigh the impact of impeachment or rehabilitation if only minor discrepancies are involved. On the other hand, if the statements relate to a crucial fact, it may be worth the risk of confusing the jury.
You might also like to view...
Documents seized show that al Qaeda spent $175,000 in a four month period, documents were seized by:
a. FBI. b. Department of State. c. military. d. Afghan forces.
The primary purpose of a homeowners' association is to maintain, enhance, and protect the common areas of a subdivision or neighborhood
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
What theory focuses on struggles between individuals and/or groups in terms of power differentials?
A. social disorganization theory B. anomie/strain theory C. conflict theory D. r/K selection theory
What would the effect on the criminal justice system be if the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Herrera in Herrera v. Collins?
Do you agree with the Court that a defendant's claim that he is actually innocent is only available to him "where the prisoner supplements his constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence?" Would you grant habeas corpus review to "freestanding claims of actual innocence," that is, those claims without a claim that his trial was marred by constitutional error? Why or why not? What will be an ideal response?