Impeachment Applications Questions

Team Presentations - Law 16 - Spring 2015

 

Impeachment Applications Questions

Chapter 6 Impeachment - Applications Questions page 100/101

Consider the following hypothetical situation:

 

Mr. Smith testified for the state during the trial of Mr. White who was charged with gun smuggling. Mr. Smith testified that he observed Mr. White's boat leave the dock just before midnight on May 9th, and return at 6 a.m. on May 10th, the next morning. White claims he never took the boat out that night. The evidence of the boat's departure is a critical part of the state's circumstantial case against Mr. White

 

Mr. Smith previously told his sister that Mr. White's boat never left the dock at all during the entire month of May. Mr. Smith's sister at one time had been engaged to Mr. White, but Mr. White had jilted her.

 

1. Is evidence of Mr. Smith's prior statement to his sister admissible? If yes, how would this testimony be presented? Could Mr. Smith's sister be called? Why or why not.

 

2. Is evidence of Mr. Smith's sister's prior engagement to Mr. White admissible? Why or why not?

 

3. If Mr. Smith's sister is allowed to testify to Mr. Smith's prior inconsistent statement regarding Mr. White's boat never having left the dock during the entire month of May, is this testimony usable by defense to prove that in fact Mr. White's boat stayed docked during that time? Why or why not?

 

Consider the following hypothetical.

Sharon is charged with aggravated assault. She claims she didn't intend to actually shoot the gun but was only trying to scare the victim when the gun went off by accident. Sharon was convicted seven years ago of the crime of embezzlement. She took $200 from her employer's petty cash drawer and placed phony receipts in the box to cover her theft.

 

4. Under what rule would evidence of Sharon's embezzlement conviction be admissible?

 

5. How is Sharon's embezzlement conviction relevant to this case?

 

6. Is Sharon's embezzlement conviction excludable on either grounds of irrelevancy, or unfair prejudice pursuant to Rule 403? Why or why not?

 

Assume the following question that Sharon's conviction seven years ago was for the crime of felony robbery.

 

7. Under what rule would evidence or Sharon's felony robbery conviction be admissible?

 

8. How is Sharon's felony robbery conviction relevant to this case?

 

9. Is Sharon's robbery conviction excludable on either grounds of irrelevancy, or unfair prejudice pursuant to Rule 403? Why or why not.

 

Now post your work.