Respuesta :
The federal rules of evidence permit a party to cross-examine a witness regarding the witness's prior act of misconduct only where the act "is probative of truthfulness."
Federal Rule of Evidence 608 licenses investigation into a witness' demonstration of offense, in the watchfulness of the court, just if the demonstration is probative of truthfulness (i.e., is a demonstration of misleading or lying). This is smaller than the conventional greater part run, which gives that, subject to optional control of the preliminary judge, a witness might be questioned upon interrogation concerning any shameless, horrible, or criminal demonstration of his life that may influence his character and show him to be unworthy of conviction. Extraneous proof of "terrible acts" isn't allowed. A particular demonstration of offense, offered to assault the witness' character for honesty, can be inspired just on round of questioning of the witness. In the event that the witness denies the demonstration, the cross-analyst can't disprove the appropriate response by calling different witnesses or creating other proof. A witness might be impugned by her earlier demonstration of offense regardless of whether the demonstration did not bring about a criminal conviction. Notwithstanding, the demonstration of unfortunate behavior must be probative of truthfulness .
Federal Rule of Evidence 608 licenses investigation into a witness' demonstration of offense, in the watchfulness of the court, just if the demonstration is probative of truthfulness (i.e., is a demonstration of misleading or lying). This is smaller than the conventional greater part run, which gives that, subject to optional control of the preliminary judge, a witness might be questioned upon interrogation concerning any shameless, horrible, or criminal demonstration of his life that may influence his character and show him to be unworthy of conviction. Extraneous proof of "terrible acts" isn't allowed. A particular demonstration of offense, offered to assault the witness' character for honesty, can be inspired just on round of questioning of the witness. In the event that the witness denies the demonstration, the cross-analyst can't disprove the appropriate response by calling different witnesses or creating other proof. A witness might be impugned by her earlier demonstration of offense regardless of whether the demonstration did not bring about a criminal conviction. Notwithstanding, the demonstration of unfortunate behavior must be probative of truthfulness .
