Browse from 
VIEW TREE
ICON KEY
2846:false:false:false:false:false:false:true:false:false:!4098!:false:-1:-1
Specific instances of the conduct of a witness to show the untruthfulness of the witness
Add Comment
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2009 by Peter Tillers
Law
»
Courts
»
Evidence
»
Admissibility of evidence
»
Witness competence & credibility
»
Impeachment and rehabilitation of witnesses
»
Impeachment
»
In general a party has the right to impeach any witness
»
Different types of impeachment permissible
»
Untruthfulness
»
Types of evidence
»
Specific instances of conduct: Specific instances of...
Narrow Down
Contribution Suggestions
complete authority for rule...
The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars the introduction against a criminal...Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, pin? (2006) (held, backward-looking pretrial statements made to the police during an investigation whose purpose is to investigate past events rather than to deal with an....
in support of
The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars the introduction against a criminal defendant of testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant unless (i) the absent declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and (ii) the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the absent declarant prior to trial. vouch for authority for rule...
The applicability of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803 or a comparable State rule does not depend on the availability...Fed. R. Evid. 803 ("The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness:...").
in support of
The applicability of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803 or a comparable State rule does not depend on the availability or unavailability of the declarant (the maker of the statement).vouch for authority for rule...
noUnited States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 236-237 (2d Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the autopsy reports because (1) "the autopsy reports [were] business records as defined in FED. R. EVID.....
in support of
no