Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[citation needed] The examiner must also provide the witness with the opportunity to adopt or reject the previous statement. [1] In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, prior inconsistent statements may not be introduced to prove the truth of the prior statement itself, as this constitutes hearsay, but only to impeach the credibility of the witness.
[13] However, some courts continue to apply the doctrine to discredit witnesses that have previously offered false testimony. [14] In 2013, for example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that in immigration cases, a court may "use an adverse credibility finding on one claim to support an adverse finding on another ...
Lamer CJ adopted these two criteria in formulating the test for admitting prior inconsistent statements. First, "if the statement is made under oath, solemn affirmation or solemn declaration following an explicit warning to the witness as to the existence of severe criminal sanctions for the making of a false statement".
Following Brady, the prosecutor must disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses. Evidence that would serve to reduce the defendant's sentence must also be disclosed by the prosecution.
Witnesses may also be unavailable because they have died, had memory loss, or simply decided not to cooperate as a witness against the defendant. The obvious may also occur, a witness may be intimidated, seriously injured, or murdered, and his prior statements then are usually not admissible even if it appears the defendant caused the ...
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. [1]
If the witness were one that the party was required by law to call as a witness. If the witness surprised the party who called him by giving damaging testimony against that party. The rule has been eliminated in many jurisdictions. Under the US Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 607 permits any party to attack the credibility of any witness. [1]
In United States law, the Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a judicial test used in some U.S. state courts to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only when the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific ...