This article delves into the intricacies of Federal Rule 613 or its state rule counterpart, which governs the use of prior inconsistent statements during cross-examination, and provides techniques for effectively impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. Additionally, it offers two notable cases that exemplify the strategic use of impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement.
Understanding Rule 613 (a) Examining Witness Concerning Prior Statement
Rule 613 outlines how attorneys can address prior statements made by a witness. When questioning a witness about a previous statement, whether it is documented or verbal, the court may require that the statement be presented to the witness at that moment. This process ensures transparency and fairness, as opposing counsel must also be granted access to the statement upon request. This rule is designed to prevent surprise and allows for a fair assessment of the witness's credibility.
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of Prior Inconsistent Statement
Extrinsic evidence refers to evidence that comes from outside the current testimony. Under Rule 613, such evidence cannot typically be used to contradict a witness unless certain conditions are met. The witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement, and the opposing party must have the chance to interrogate the witness about it. This provision serves to uphold the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that witnesses have a fair opportunity to defend their credibility. Notably, this rule does not apply to admissions made by a party-opponent, as defined in Rule 801(d)(2), which allows for greater flexibility in certain circumstances.
Nine steps for Effective Impeachment with a Prior Inconsistent Statement
To effectively impeach a witness using a prior inconsistent statement, attorneys should follow these nine strategic steps:
1. Avoid Nitpicking: Focus on significant inconsistencies rather than trivial details. Nitpicking can alienate the jury and undermine the attorney's credibility. Instead, aim for substantial contradictions that genuinely affect the witness's reliability.
2. Recognize the Inconsistency: Active listening is crucial during the witness's testimony. Attorneys must be alert to discrepancies, whether they arise from differences in the account of events, time frames, or details that do not align with previous statements.
3. Retrieve the Prior Statement: Preparation is key. Attorneys should have the prior statement readily accessible, whether it is a written document, an audio recording, or a transcript. Being prepared allows for a smoother cross-examination process.
4. Repeat the Testimony: Establish a clear baseline by having the witness reiterate the testimony that will be contradicted. This helps the jury understand what the witness has said and highlights the inconsistency.
5. Reinforce the Truthful Statement: Emphasize why the prior statement is more credible. Factors such as the timing of the statement—especially if it was made shortly after the event—and the circumstances under which it was made (e.g., less pressure or less time to fabricate) can make the prior statement more believable.
6. Reference the Prior Statement: Clearly point out the prior statement in question. This makes it easier for the jury to follow along and understand the relevance of the inconsistency.
7. Resonate with the Jury: Use pauses strategically. After revealing the prior statement, take a moment to let the information sink in. Reading the statement slowly and clearly can help emphasize its importance and impact.
8. Read and/or Display the Statement: Utilize visual aids or read the statement aloud to increase its impact. Visuals can help the jury retain the information and create a more memorable moment during cross-examination. Don’t have the witness read the prior statement because the witness may miss-read it.
9. Refute the Witness’s Denial: If the witness attempts to deny the prior statement, be prepared to counter this with extrinsic evidence if applicable. This could include documents, recordings, or testimonies from other witnesses that support the existence of the prior statement.
Notable Examples of Impeachment with a Prior Inconsistent Statement
1. The O.J. Simpson Trial
During the O.J. Simpson trial, witness Mark Fuhrman, a police officer, initially testified that he had not used racial slurs. However, recordings from the past revealed him using derogatory language. This prior statement severely damaged his credibility, and the defense effectively used this impeachment to suggest that Fuhrman's bias influenced the investigation, ultimately affecting the jury's perception of the evidence presented.
2. The Bill Clinton Impeachment Trial
In the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky's testimony regarding her relationship with Clinton contained inconsistencies when compared to her earlier statements. The defense highlighted these discrepancies, suggesting that Lewinsky had motives to lie. This impeachment weakened her credibility and played a crucial role in the overall narrative of the trial, casting doubt on the prosecution's case.
No comments:
Post a Comment