Inconsistency is probably the most frequently employed method of
impeachment during cross-examination, especially in cases where depositions
have been taken. Sometimes the inconsistency is not an internal
conflict between what the witness now says and what the witness once said.
Sometimes it is a conflict between what the witness says and another witness or
some irrefutable fact. An example of this type of impeachment was seen in the
trial of George Zimmerman.
In the early days of the investigation, Zimmerman
had gone on a nationally televised talk show and asserted that he had never
heard of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law (SYG). Given the pervasive coverage
of the public debate surrounding the passage of SYG, this assertion was
inherently implausible. The prosecution was not content to simply rely on the
inherently implausibility, but went on to call a professor who had taught a
criminal justice class which Zimmerman had taken in college. The professor
thoroughly contradicted Zimmerman by revealing that he had been taught about
SYG in the class. This impeachment of Zimmerman tends to validate what we have said
before - that impeaching a witness oftendoes very little toward the primary objective of persuading the finder-of-fact
to accept your case theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment