I am having a hard time with when prior bad acts or prior convictions can be used against witnesses or the accused.

For some reason I just can't get my head around this one.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

So I have tried to get off this piece a shit site and cant. I followed their freaking procedure to no luck. Is there a simple way?

From:

PRIOR BAD ACTS
Prior Bad Acts are admissible only for the purpose of impeachment i) if they are probative of trutfulness AND ii) asked on cross examination. Extrinsic evidence is not allowed.

eg. A commits murder of B. Prosecution asks A on cross examination if he has filed false tax. This is a prior bad acts, no conviction, no judgment, but because it is probative of truthfulness AND it is asked on cross examination, it is admitted only to impeach A.If prosecution called Z to testify that A has filed false tax report. Not admissible because extrinisic evidence cannot be allowed.

CONVICTION
Always see whether Conviction is a i) crimes involving dishonesty OR ii) crimes not involving dishonesty

i)crimes involving dishonesty whether felony or non felony are admissible and judge has no discretion to exclude unless 10 years have lapsed from the date of conviction or date of relase (whichever is later)

ii) crimes not involving dishonesty - ONLY felony conviction can be admissible and judge has discretion to admit if the probative value outwieghs the prejudicial effect.10 year rule applies.

Means of proof for both - i) cross examination ii) producing a record of the judgment iii) other witnesses cannot be called iv) no foundation required

OTHER POINTS

juvinile conviction (this comes up in MBE) and constitutionally defective convictions are not admissible.


just keep reminding yourself, you are challenging credibility of the witness, whether accused or not, chalaneging anything which proves that he lied whether by prior acts or conviction for a crime involving dishonesty is important. Similary if a person said inconsistent to something which he now testifies he can be dsicredited (prior inconsistent statement) and the only one left is bias and that has logic too. If you testify in a murder case in which your husband/wife is accused you will favor him/her. But if you get to know that a bar examiner failed you and you are called to testify, are you not going to go against him. BIAS.

Sorry for the typos (time for lunch !!)

Thanks for the explainations!

Mona,

Thank you for the detailed explanation. That truly helps me get my head around the concept.

Many Thanks Wes

Don't know the bar you are preparing..
NY = Prior bad act only if shows the bad moral valued of the defendant +
only by CROSS EXAMINATION / Prior conviction for any crime by record or
other evidence
CA = You have to check by i think that it is the same except that
conviction of crime are limited to those involving Moral turpitude

Myriam


On 2/5/10 11:04 AM,