Let’s also assume for the moment that the wrong testimony is about something relevant to the case and you are not in a situation where you can impeach through prior inconsistent statements. Federalevidence blog has a case discussing impeachment through contradiction.Drawing the line between evidence that probes the character and conduct of a witness through use of "specific incidents" of misconduct under FRE 608(b) and evidence aimed at directly contradicting the witness’s contentions, can be difficult to draw. A recent case of the Third Circuit explored this difference between evidence excludable under FRE 608(b) and evidence admitted as evidence of "impeachment by contradiction."

The supreme court’s Order 16-02A, 2017 WI 92, effective January 1, 2018, amends some rules of evidence that apply frequently in criminal cases:It clarifies the rule of completeness, § 901.07, by providing the rule is applicable to oral testimony as well as written testimony and to provide guidance on how and when to apply the rule.It revises § 906.08, governing impeachment of witnesses, to parallel Federal Rule of Evidence 608, by changing the reference to introduction of specific acts “for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’s credibility” to specific acts “for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness’s character for truthfulness,” thus clarifying that the prohibition on extrinsic evidence of specific acts applies only when the sole reason for offering the evidence is to attack or support the witness’s character for truthfulness, and does not to bar extrinsic evidence for bias, competency and contradiction impeachment, which are governed by other rules of evidence.It amends § 906.09, regarding impeachment with prior convictions or adjudications, to conform the rule to current practice, make it more closely mirror Federal Rule of Evidence 608, and list the factors a court must consider in deciding whether to allow a prior conviction to be used for impeachment.

She agreed to sell her home and to forfeit the proceeds to the government. The Court of Appeals held that the district court erroneously applied Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) by allowing the government to cross-examine her about alleged false statements on a tax return and student financial aid applications, neither of which were at issue in the trial. The government lacked a good faith basis for believing that Abair lied on the tax and financial aid forms and impermissibly asked a serious of accusatory and prejudicial questions about them under Rule 608(b).

If failure of supervisors to comply with company policy were sufficient evidence to prove the lack of a good- faith effort to train, the Kolstad defense would be effectively eliminated." Panel affirms exclusion of evidence under FRE608(b) that the employee failed to disclose her Title VII claim properly in a bankruptcy petition as cumulative and liable to produce "mini- trial."Crumpacker v. State of Kansas , 474 F.3d 747, 99 FEP 890 (10th Cir. 2007). Panel : TYMKOVICH, Lucero, Anderson.

Brunker contends that the information is a specific instance of Szabo's character for truthfulness. FED. R. EVID. 608(b). We agree.

”“Vouching” (that is, bolstering the credibility of another witness) can also be a problem with overview testimony. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a), credibility may be vouched for only after it has been attacked. Judge Porter said that “[v]ouching for a witness who has not yet testified would, therefore, be inappropriate.”

These are the lessons of United States v. McClaflin, affirming the district court's independent factfinding (based on sworn victim statements), and imposition of a 6-level enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1 for substantial financial hardship to more than 25 victims.ContinuancesIn McClaflin, the Tenth Circuit also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to continue the defendant's sentencing hearing.Sex offensesIn United States v. A.S., the Tenth Circuit tackled the interplay of Fed. R. Evid. 412 (governing admissibility of a victim's prior sexual behavior), Fed. R. Evid. 608 (limiting admission of specific instances of conduct), and the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, finding no error in the district court's rulings in that case, and affirming A.S.'s sexual-assault conviction.In a footnote, the Court observed that Rule 412 only applies to evidence being offered for specific purposes, and that it might not apply to evidence of prior false accusations (citing, among other sources, the Rule's advisory notes). The Court did not need to reach that question in A.S.JuvenilesIn A.S., the Tenth Circuit also examined at length sentencing under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, rejecting the view (held by the Ninth Circuit) that juvenile sentences must be the least restrictive means of achieving rehabilitation and addressing the needs of the community.

First, a witness’s character for truthfulness may be impeached only by specific instances of prior conduct and only “if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” Fed. R. Evid. 608(b). Unlike a criminal conviction, an arrest is not, in itself, probative of the arrested person’s character for truthfulness.

4) The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of an anonymous threatening call received by a defense witness where there was no evidence as to the caller. The Court also properly excluded extrinsic evidence of another witness's allegedly fraudulent business practices under FRE 608(b). 5) The district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on witness tampering based on alleged "threats" made to Mr. Galvan by FBI agents.

Supreme Court Watch: Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure Clause): Maryland v. King: Divided Court Upholds DNA Sample Collection From Arrestees For A “Serious” Crime Without A Search Warrant4. Supreme Court Watch: Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause): Smith v. United States: Unanimous Conspiracy Withdrawal Ruling5. Certification (a civil case).6. Supreme Court Watch: Sixth Amendment (Right to Present a Defense) (Confrontation Clause); FRE 608(b) (Specific Instances of Conduct): Nevada v. Jackson: No Constitutional Right To Present Extrinsic Evidence For Impeachment Purposes7. Addressing Juror Internet Research During Trials8.