Washington DC Court Martial Lawyer: Cross examination of witnesses
When cross-examination is done in such a manner as to induce the belief of untrustworthiness, rehabilitation is permitted. See United States v. Allard, 19 M.J. 346 (C.M.A. 1985). Also, a slashing cross-examination will meet the or otherwise criteria of Rule 608(a). See United States v. Everage, 19 M.J. 189 (C.M.A. 1985). Simply introducing evidence which contradicts a witnesses testimony or statement is not an or otherwise attack according to Rule 608(a).
According to Rule 608(b)(2) the character witness can be asked questions regarding specific acts of the person whose credibility has been attacked or rehabilitated as a means of testing the character witness. The questioner is prohibited from introducing extrinsic evidence in support of his inquiry. This avoids a trial within a trial. When witness denies knowledge of the specific acts, no extrinsic evidence of specific acts is permitted. You are stuck with the answer. See United States v. Cerniglia, 31 M.J. 804 (AFCMR 1991).
As per the Collateral Fact Rule, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach witnesses on collateral facts. The aim of the rule is to prevent digression into unimportant matters, since the potential for wasting time and confusing the fact finder is especially high if extrinsic evidence is used to impeach. It does not limit the cross-examiners questioning a witness about collateral facts, subject to the general discretion of the court.
Comments on this entry are closed.