Evidence
Part of the common law series
Types of evidence
Testimony · Documentary evidence
Physical evidence · Digital evidence
Exculpatory evidence · Scientific evidence
Demonstrative evidence · Real evidence
Hearsay: in U.K. law · in U.S. law
Relevance
Burden of proof
Laying a foundation
Subsequent remedial measure
Character evidence · Habit evidence
Similar fact evidence
Authentication
Chain of custody
Judicial notice · Best evidence rule
Self-authenticating document
Ancient document
Witnesses
Competence · Privilege
Direct examination · Cross-examination
Impeachment · Recorded recollection
Expert witness · Dead man statute
Hearsay (and its exceptions)
Excited utterance · Dying declaration
Party admission · Ancient document
Declarations against interest
Present sense impression · Res gestae
Learned treatise  · Implied assertion
Other areas of the common law
Contract law · Tort law · Property law
Wills and Trusts · Criminal law

Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. There are a number of ways that a witness may properly be impeached, and several ways that, although effective, are prohibited except under special circumstances. Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. ... Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. ... Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a physical object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics. ... Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. ... Exculpatory evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt. ... To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ... Demonstrative evidence is evidence used to help the fact-finder gain context for the facts of the case. ... Real evidence is a type of physical evidence and consists of objects that were involved in a case or actually played a part in the incident or transaction in question. ... For other uses, see Hearsay. ... Hearsay is a legal term that describes a class of evidence generally disallowed by most courts in the United States. ... Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. ... In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. ... In law, to lay a foundation means to provide sufficient evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of the testimony of a witness, documentary evidence, or other piece of evidence. ... A subsequent remedial measure is a term used in the law of evidence (law) in the United States to describe an improvement or repair made to a structure following an injury caused by the condition of that structure. ... Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. ... Habit evidence is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe any evidence submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on that persons tendancy to reflexively respond to a particular situation... In the law of evidence, similar fact evidence (or the similar fact principle) establishes the conditions under which factual evidence of past misconduct of accused can be admitted at trial for the purpose of infering that the accused committed the misconduct at issue. ... Authentication, in the law of evidence, is the process by which documentary evidence and other physical evidence is proven to be genuine, and not a forgery. ... The chain of custody is a concept in jurisprudence which applies to the handling of evidence and its integrity. ... Judicial Notice is a rule of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it is cannot be refuted. ... The best evidence rule is a rule of evidence in the United States that requires that when writings are introduced as evidence in a trial, the original writing must be produced unless the party can account satisfactorily for its absence. ... A self authenticating document, under the law of evidence in the United States is any document that can be admitted into evidence at a trial without any proof being submitted to support the claim that the document is what it appears to be. ... An ancient document, in the law of evidence, refers to both a means of authentication for a piece of documentary evidence, and an exception to the hearsay rule. ... This article is about witnesses in law courts. ... In law, competence is conerns the mental capacity of a individual to participate in legal proceedings. ... Under common law, privilege is a term describing a number of rules excluding evidence that would be adverse to a fundamental principle or relationship if it were disclosed. ... Direct examination (also called examination in chief) is the questioning of a witness by the party who called him or her, in a trial in a court of law. ... In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by ones opponent. ... A recorded recollection, in the law of evidence, is a an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a witness to testify to the accuracy of a recording or documentation of their own out-of-court statement based on their recollection of the circumstances under which the statement was recorded... An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, profession, publication or experience, is believed to have special knowledge of his or her subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon his opinion. ... A dead man statute is a statute designed to prevent perjury in a civil case by prohibiting a witness who is an interested party from testifying about communications or transactions with a decedent, unless there is a waiver. ... Hearsay may refer to: Hearsay in English Law and Hearsay in United States law, a legal principle concerning the admission of evidence through repetition of out-of-court statements HearSay, a British pop group Category: ... An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a shocking event. ... In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may nonetheless be admitted as evidence in certain kinds of cases because it constituted the last words of a dying person. ... A party admission, in the law of evidence, is any statement made by a declarant who is a party to a lawsuit, which is offered as evidence against that party. ... An ancient document, in the law of evidence, refers to both a means of authentication for a piece of documentary evidence, and an exception to the hearsay rule. ... Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a persons statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so predjudicial to the person making it (such as confessing to a crime or admitting liability for a tort) that they would... A present sense impression, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person that conveys their sense of the state of certain things at the time the statement was made. ... This article is for the legal term Res Gestae. For the article on the record of the accomplishments of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, see the article for Res Gestae Divi Augusti. ... A learned treatise, in the law of evidence, is a text that is sufficiently authoritiative in its field to be admissible as evidence in a court in support of the contentions made therein. ... In the law of evidence, an implied assertion is a statement or conduct that infers some fact. ... A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. ... Not to be confused with torte, an iced cake. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ... In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ... The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ... The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and often severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. ... For other uses, see Law (disambiguation). ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... In legal parlance, a trial is an event in which parties to a dispute present information (in the form of evidence) in a formal setting, usually a court, before a judge, jury, or other designated finder of fact, in order to achieve a resolution to their dispute. ...

Methods of impeachment

A party may be impeached through introducing evidence of any of the following (remembered via the mnemonic BICCC):

• Bias--The witness is biased against one party or in favor of the other. The witness has a personal interest in the outcome of the case. A classic example is a witness for the prosecution who is awaiting sentencing. He's more likely to be pro-prosecution in hopes of better treatment. The proper way to handle this is first to question the witness to see if he will admit to the bias. If not, then the cross-examiner may bring in other witnesses to expose the bias.
• Inconsistent Statement--The witness has made two or more conflicting statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his credibility.
• Character Show that the witness has a community-recognized reputation for dishonesty. Specific examples are inadmissible -- unless the witness admits them himself under cross-examination -- but to present witnesses who can attest to the witness's character is helpful. This might seem tedious, especially when it is realized that a character witness against the principal witness may himself be impeached the same way, but normally witnesses are total unknowns to jurors, and people with reputations in their community for being total fabricators do show up in court from time to time. Coupled with character are prior criminal acts by the witness. This is handled in one of three ways:
  • If the witness has committed any crime involving dishonesty (i.e. larceny-by-trick, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) then the prior conviction is admissible under every circumstance.
  • If the witness is the criminal defendant, a felony conviction (i.e., conviction of a crime that is punishable of at least one year in prison) is admissible if the judge determines that the probative value outweighs the potential for prejudice.
  • If the witness is not the criminal defendant, a felony conviction is admissible unless the judge determines that its prejudical nature substantially outweighs its probativity.
  • Stale felonies, that is, felonies where the witness was released at least ten years ago (or was found guilty ten years ago if no incarceration) are admissible only if the probative value substantially outweighs its prejudice.
• Competency Basically show that the witness was unable to sense what he claimed to have (i.e., could not see from where he was, etc.) or that he lacked the requisite mental capacity. Older common law would exclude an incompetent witness from testifying. Modern rules, and the Federal Rules of Evidence allow the witness on the stand (in most cases) considering competence but one of many factors juries are to consider when determining credibility of the witness.
• Contradiction This occurs when the witness is induced to contradict his own testimony during the present proceeding. This differs from inconsistent statements, above. Inconsistent statements involve statements made out-of-court (cf. hearsay) or in prior proceedings. Contradiction involves the witness saying two different things while presently testifying.

An attorney impeaching a witness during a mock trial competition

Another form of impeachment by contradiction has a subtle effect on the order in which the attorneys present their evidence. When a defense attorney calls a witness who testifies about what happened, this gives the opposing attorney the opportunity to present evidence contradicting that witness. Had impeachment by contradiction not been allowed by the rules of evidence, the second attorney would have been barred from presenting the contradicting evidence because he already had his one (and only) chance to prove the facts of the case as he claims them to be. But since his opponent put on a witness, this "opens the door" to him to strengthen his case by going again with more proof of what happened: the only legal excuse for this re-hash of his claim is that he is impeaching by contradiction his opponent's witness. Another use of impeachment by contradiction can be explained negatively: while an attorney cannot contradict an opponent's witness on a trivial ("collateral") fact, like the color of the hat she testified she was wearing on the day she witnessed the accident, on more important matters normally excluded by the rules of relevance, contradiction may be allowed. Thus, a witness might not normally be permitted to testify she is a safe driver, and the opponent cannot normally prove she is in general an unsafe driver, but should the witness nonetheless happen to testify she is a safe driver (say because no objection was made to the question), her opponent can now contradict her (when it is his turn again) with evidence she has been involved in several accidents. Had contradiction impeachment not be permitted, then the unsafe character of the witness would have been barred by the rules of evidence. In the law of evidence, a prior inconsistent statement is when a witness, testifying at trial, makes a statement that is inconsistent with a previous statement given at an earlier time such as during a discovery, interview, or interrogation. ... For the record label, see Felony Records The term felony is a term used in common law systems for very serious crimes, whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. ... The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in the United States federal court system. ... Hearsay may refer to: Hearsay in English Law and Hearsay in United States law, a legal principle concerning the admission of evidence through repetition of out-of-court statements HearSay, a British pop group Category: ... Image File history File links Size of this preview: 727 × 599 pixelsFull resolution‎ (893 × 736 pixels, file size: 141 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) File historyClick on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. ... Image File history File links Size of this preview: 727 × 599 pixelsFull resolution‎ (893 × 736 pixels, file size: 141 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) File historyClick on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. ... A mock trial is a contrived or imitation trial. ...

Who may impeach?

Under the common law of England, a party could not impeach his own witness unless one of four special circumstances was met. This was due to the Voucher Rule, which required that the proponent of the witness "vouche" for the truthfulness of the witness. The special circumstances were: This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... For other uses, see England (disambiguation). ...

1. If the witness was an adverse party (e.g. if the plaintiff called the defendant to the stand, or vice-versa).
2. If the witness was hostile (e.g. refused to cooperate).
3. If the witness was one that the party was required by law to call as a witness.
4. If the witness surprised the party who called him by giving damaging testimony against that party.

This rule has been eliminated in many jurisdications. Under the United States' Federal Rules of Evidence, (F.R.E. 607), any party may attack the credibility of any witness. A plaintiff, also known as a claimant or complainer, is the party who initiates a lawsuit (also known as an action) before a court. ... A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute. ... The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) are the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in the United States federal court system. ...

Bolstering and Rehabilitating

The general rule is that the proponent of a witness may not attempt to build up the witnesses credibility prior to his being impeached. The rationale is that the witness is presumed trustworthy. It also speeds proceedings by not spending time bolstering when the other side may not even impeach the witness.

In order to rehabilitate a witness, the proponent is confined to using the same techniques used by the opponent to impeach the witness. That is, if the opponent impeached via bias, then rehabilitation is limited to negating the claim of bias. If the opponent brought in a rebuttal witness who testified to the character of principal witness as that of a liar, rehabilitation is limited to a character witness who testifies principal witness is a truthful person. (Note: this is a different consideration from the ever-present right to cross-examine any witness, including character witnesses).

If the opponent showed the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and implies that after that statement and prior to trial the witness was "gotten to" or otherwise developed a motive to lie in court, rehabilitation can be attempted by showing that the witness made a prior consistent statement (consistent with the testimony) before the alleged events that gave rise to the alleged motive to lie. The jury is left with two pre-trial statements that are inconsistent with each other, but only one is inconsistent with the testimony, and both were made before the witness was allegedly gotten to, so there might be softening of the accusation that the testimony flows from, e.g., a bribe. And there is always a case for allowing a prior consistent statement made at any time before trial to help explain away what is arguably only a seemingly inconsistent statement that is subject to interpretation because, e.g., it was lifted out of explanatory context.