Quiz J - Impeachment

1. The rules regarding evidence which is admissible for impeachment are the same as the rules regarding evidence which is admissible to prove character.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

2. A witness's reputation for being honest cannot be introduced until the witness's credibility has been attacked.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

3. A witness may not be cross-examined about specific past misconduct for impeachment purposes.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

4. A witness may be cross-examined about specific past conduct for
impeachment purposes, even when there was no conviction.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

5. Impeachment evidence which is highly prejudicial may be excluded pursuant to FRE 403, unless the evidence relates to a past conviction for a crime related to dishonesty or false statements.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

6. If an accused in burglary case does not admit to past conduct during cross- examination, the prosecution may bring in extrinsic evidence of such conduct to impeach the credibility of the defendant.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

7. The accused in a rape case may be questioned about past sex crimes for purposes of impeachment or for any other purpose.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

8. In a rape or child molestation case, the prosecution may introduce extrinsic evidence of other offenses of a sexual nature committed by the defendant.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

9. A party in the lawsuit may not impeach its own witness.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

10. One permissible impeachment method is to question the witness for the purpose of showing bias.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

11. It is not permissible to impeach a witness by asking questions which show that the witness may have some interest in the outcome of the case.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

12. Evidence of a prior felony conviction may be used to impeach the witness providing that certain requirements are met.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

13. The government, in a criminal case, or the plaintiff, in a civil case, may present evidence of a witness' truthful character before the opponent has attacked the witness' character for truthfulness.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

14. The defendant in a criminal case, where truthfulness is not a pertinent character trait, may present a witness to testify about the defendant's character for truthfulness even if the defendant does not testify.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

15. The government, in a criminal case, presents a rebuttal witness to testify about the victim's truthfulness. (The defendant has already attacked the victim by presenting a witness who testified about the victim's reputation for untruthfulness.) The defendant may now have a witness testify about specific instances where the victim was untruthful.

Select one:

TRUE.

FALSE.

16. Suzie Cute, a victim of burglary, intends to testify but has not yet been called by the prosecution to testify about the break-in at her condo. The prosecution calls a witness to testify about the victim's reputation for truthfulness.

(a) The evidence is admissible because evidence about a person's truthfulness is always admissible.

(b) The evidence is admissible because character evidence of a person's truthfulness is proper in the form of reputation.

(c) The evidence is inadmissible because truthfulness is not a pertinent character trait in a burglary prosecution.

(d) The evidence is inadmissible because truthfulness evidence is not proper unless the witness' character for truthfulness has been attacked.

17. The defendant who has been accused of burglarizing Suzie's condo has listed several character witnesses. The defense attorney calls one of those witnesses and begins laying the foundation for testimony about the defendant. The prosecution asks for a sidebar conference to remind the judge about the prosecution's motion in limine (prepared by the brilliant paralegal) which discusses the law regarding the appropriate time for character evidence about the defendant. The judge should caution the defense as follows:

(a) The witness may render an opinion regarding the defendant's character for truthfulness at any time during the defendant's case in chief.

(b) The witness may testify about the defendant's reputation for truthfulness any time during the defendant's case in chief.

(c) The witness may testify about the defendant's character for truthfulness only if the defendant testifies that he is a good person.

(d) The witness may testify about the defendant's character for truthfulness if it has been attacked during or after the defendant testifies.

18. Charles Cheating is the president of a Federal Savings and Loan. He has been charged with embezzling $50,000 from the company. At trial his attorney calls Harry, a neighbor of Mr. Cheating, to testify that in his opinion Mr. Cheating is a good family man and a quiet neighbor. The prosecution objects to the admission of this evidence. The evidence should be:

(a) Inadmissible, because the character evidence must be offered as reputation evidence to be admissible.

(b) Inadmissible, because the character evidence does not go to the traits of character in issue.

(c) Admissible because opinion evidence is proper for establishing character.

(d) Inadmissible because the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs any potential probative value.

19. The defendant is on trial for first degree murder. The defendant testifies. The prosecution cross-examines but does not attack the defendant's character for truthfulness. The defense counsel calls the defendant's employer to testify. Defense counsel asks the employer "What is defendant's reputation in the community for truthfulness?" The prosecutor objects. Should the court permit the testimony?

(a) Yes, because character evidence is admissible under these circumstances to establish a character trait.

(b) Yes, because the prosecutor put the defendant's character at issue by cross-examining the defendant.

(c) No, because the evidence is irrelevant to any material issue in the case.

(d) No, the evidence is inadmissible since the prosecution did not put the d defendant's character for untruthfulness at issue first.

20. During an interview of one of the opponent's witnesses, Perky Paralegal discovers that the witness once was charged but not formally prosecuted for perjury. Perky recalls something about using this type of evidence for impeachment. Perky should:

(a) Make a note of it, but not pursue it because without a conviction, the incident
is not admissible.

(b) Make a note of it, but not pursue it because the attorney couldn't present extrinsic evidence about the charge to impeach the witness.

(c) Make a note of the specifics because the attorney could impeach the witness by asking about the incident.

(d) Make a note of the specifics because the attorney could impeach the witness by admitting the pleadings for perjury that were filed against the witness.

21. The government filed criminal charges against Doltilth, a county supervisor, for taking kickbacks. At trial the government wants to impeach a defense witness with the witness' prior misdemeanor conviction for walking his dog without a leash. The conviction is:

(a) Admissible because a misdemeanor conviction may be used to impeach the
witness.

(b) Admissible because any conviction is admissible for impeachment.

(c) Inadmissible because the misdemeanor conviction is not for false statements or dishonesty.

(d) Inadmissible because misdemeanor convictions cannot be used for impeachment under Rule 609

22. The government calls a Mr. Slimeth to testify that County Supervisor Doltilth took kickbacks from Mr. Slimeth. Doltilth attempts to impeach Mr. Slimeth with his prior felony conviction from three years before. The conviction is:

(a) Inadmissible because the conviction is three years old.

(b) Inadmissible unless the judge determines that the conviction is minimally probative.

(c) Admissible because felony convictions may be used to impeach witnesses if the judge determines that there are no problems with Rule 403.

(d) Admissible because felony convictions are always admissible

23. The government also filed criminal charges against County Supervisor Doltilth for misappropriating campaign contributions. At the criminal trial, Doltilth decides to testify. The prosecutor's astute paralegal located a burglary felony conviction on Doltilth. The conviction is 20 years old but it has been 12 years since Doltilth was released from prison. (read the answers carefully) The conviction is:

(a) Admissible because a felony conviction is always admissible to impeach the defendant when he testifies.

(b) Admissible only if the judge determines that the conviction is more probative than prejudicial and the opponent has been provided sufficient notice that the prosecutor intends to use it.

(c) Inadmissible because the conviction is more than 10 years old from the date of the conviction.

(d) Inadmissible because the conviction is more than 10 years old from the date the defendant was released from prison.

24. Terry is a defense witness in a criminal trial against an animal rights protester who accidentally blew up a child care center while trying to blow up a medical laboratory reputed to experiment on animals. The defense attorney knows that the defense case has little, if any, appeal to jury, so while examining Terry and in order to boost Terry's credibility by showing that Terry was not affiliated with the defendant's venture, the defense attorney offers a handbill announcing Terry as a singer at a non-denominational church picnic. The prosecution objects. The handbill is:

(a) Admissible to enhance the credibility of Terry.

(b) Admissible to establish that Terry was not present during the bombing.

(c) Inadmissible because the handbill bolsters Terry's credibility which has not yet been attacked by the prosecution.

(d) Inadmissible to corroborate or enhance Terry's credibility because of the religious overtones.

25. During a trial in which Homeowner has sued Petty Pools, Inc. for improperly installing a pool light, Homeowner's attorney cross-examines Mr. Putter, an expert witness called by Petty, about the method Petty used to install the light. Mr. Putter had testified on direct examination that, in his expert opinion, Mr. Petty's company used the safest and most efficient method available to install the pool light. However, Perky Paralegal recalls reading a deposition from a different trial, wherein Mr. Putter also testified as an expert. In that deposition, he described the method Petty used as being extremely dangerous to people in the pool. The paralegal should:

(a) Tell Homeowner's attorney and turn over the deposition so that the attorney can use the prior inconsistent statement to impeach Mr. Putter.

(b) Tell Homeowner's attorney and turn over the deposition so that the attorney can move for its admission into evidence after Mr. Putter acknowledges that he made the prior statement.

(c) Not bother the attorney because the deposition would be offered for the truth and therefore inadmissible hearsay.

(d) Not bother the attorney because the deposition is inadmissible extrinsic evidence.

26. Mr. Putter, in the above trial, denies having made the statement in the earlier deposition. Homeowner's attorney moves for the admission of the deposition. The judge should rule it:

(a) Admissible because it is being offered for the truth asserted in the deposition and therefore it is not extrinsic evidence.

(b) Admissible even though it is extrinsic evidence because the attorney is permitted to prove up the statement that Mr. Petty denies having made.

(c) Inadmissible because it is extrinsic evidence.

(d) Inadmissible because the attorney was permitted to impeach Mr. Putter with the statement but cannot admit the deposition itself because Mr. Putter disputed the statement.

27. Homeowner's attorney, while questioning Homeowner at trial, asks Homeowner to recall when she first noticed a problem with the light. She can't remember. The attorney asks her to look at a letter she wrote to Mr. Petty. Mr. Petty's attorney objects. The judge should:

(a) Preclude Homeowner from viewing the letter because it is extrinsic evidence.

(b) Preclude Homeowner from viewing the letter because attorney cannot use it to impeach his own witness.

(c) Permit Homeowner to view it but preclude attorney from asking any questions about the letter.

(d) Permit Homeowner to view the letter to refresh her memory

28. Homeowner's attorney calls its own expert, Mr. Knowit, who has extensive experience in installing pool lights. He opines that Ms. Homeowner's pool light was improperly installed. Mr. Petty's paralegal suggests rebutting Mr. Knowit's testimony by calling Ms. Homeowner's jeweler to testify that Mr. Knowit and Ms. Homeowner were recently in his shop selecting matching wedding bands. The jeweler's testimony is:

(a) Admissible to impeach Mr. Knowit's general credibility.

(b) Admissible, even though it is extrinsic evidence, because it establishes Mr. Knowit's bias in favor of Ms. Homeowner.

(c) Inadmissible as impeachment because extrinsic evidence is not the proper form of impeachment.

(d) Inadmissible to impeach Mr. Knowit's general credibility because it is collateral to any issue in the case.

29. Homeowner, to impeach the jeweler, calls another jewelry store clerk who heard Ms. Homeowner and Mr. Know it making their purchase. The clerk is expected to testify that the couple were actually selecting a diamond for Ms. Homeowner's engagement ring, instead of wedding bands. The judge should:

(a) Permit the clerk to testify accordingly because the testimony is proper impeachment of jeweler.

(b) Permit the clerk to testify because the discrepancy is not a collateral matter.

(c) Preclude the testimony because although it impeaches jeweler's testimony, it is considered extrinsic evidence.

(d) Preclude the testimony because it is collateral.

- End of test. -