Impeachment Methods - Bar Exam Uniform

1. The prosecutor now seeks to call a rebuttal witness to testify that he has seen the alibi witness and the defendant together on many occasions and that they have held themselves out to the public as a couple. The defense objects. How should the court rule? Select one.
   Answer: Overrule the objection, because the evidence is admissible to show the witness's bias and motive to lie for the defendant. The correct answer is C. The prosecutor is attempting to impeach the alibi witness by showing bias. A romantic relationship with the defendant provides a strong motive to lie. Unlike impeachment on a collateral matter or via specific acts under FRE 608(b), extrinsic evidence is permissible to prove bias after a witness has denied the facts suggesting bias on cross-examination. A is incorrect because the rule against extrinsic evidence in FRE 608(b) applies to attacks on a witness's general character for truthfulness, not to showing bias. B is incorrect because a witness's bias is never considered a collateral matter. D is partially correct in that the denial provides the foundation for introducing extrinsic evidence, but C states the underlying substantive reason the evidence is admissible: to prove bias.
2. Is evidence of this conviction likely to be admissible to impeach the accountant? Select one.
   Answer: Yes, if the court determines that its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. The correct answer is B. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(b) governs the use of convictions that are more than 10 years old. The 10-year period is measured from the later of the date of conviction or the date of release from confinement. Here, 11 years have passed since the release from prison. Such a conviction is admissible only if its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect, and the proponent gives adverse party reasonable written notice. The defense gave notice, so admissibility now hinges on this strict balancing test. A is incorrect because the mandatory admission rule of FRE 609(a)(2) is subject to the time limits of 609(b). C is incorrect because the 10-year rule is not an absolute bar; it just imposes a stricter balancing test. D is incorrect because the relevance is to the witness's general character for truthfulness, not specifically to their professional expertise.
3. The plaintiff's attorney objects to the second witness's testimony on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule? Select one.
   Answer: Overrule the objection, because the statement is not being offered for its truth, but to show the first witness made a prior inconsistent statement. The correct answer is C. The testimony is being offered to impeach the first witness by showing that she previously made a statement inconsistent with her trial testimony. When an out-of-court statement is offered for the purpose of impeachment rather than to prove the truth of its contents, it is not hearsay. Here, the purpose is not to prove the car was green, but to prove that the witness said it was green, thereby casting doubt on her in-court testimony that it was blue. A is incorrect because it misidentifies the purpose for which the evidence is offered. B is irrelevant. D is incorrect because the statement describes an external event (color of a car), not the declarant's state of mind.
4. The defense objects to the friend's testimony. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.
   Answer: Overrule the objection, because the statement is admissible to rebut the charge of recent fabrication. The correct answer is C. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement is not hearsay and is admissible to rebut a charge that the witness recently fabricated testimony or is testifying from an improper influence or motive. A key requirement is that the prior statement must have been made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose. Here, the defense alleged a motive to fabricate arose from a deal to share the recovery. The statement to the friend was made long before any lawsuit or such deal could have been contemplated. Therefore, it is admissible to rebut the charge. A is incorrect because this is a specific exemption from the hearsay rule. B is incorrect because bolstering is permitted in this specific rehabilitative context. D is incorrect because there are insufficient facts to establish the requirements for excited utterance or present sense impression.
5. You wish to cross-examine the witness about his prior statement to the investigator. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, which of the following is true? Select one.
   Answer: You are not required to show the witness the investigator's report, but you must show it to opposing counsel on request. The correct answer is B. This question tests the procedural requirements for impeaching a witness with a prior inconsistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 613. A statement can be inconsistent by omission. FRE 613(a) explicitly states that when examining a witness about their prior statement, the party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. However, the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party's attorney. A is incorrect because it states the opposite of the rule. C is incorrect because the statement can be used for impeachment. D confuses the requirements for substantive admissibility under FRE 801(d)(1)(A) with the procedural requirements for impeachment under FRE 613.
6. The restaurant's attorney objects to the proposed testimony of the new witness. How should the court rule? Select one.
   Answer: Overrule the objection, because the chef's whereabouts are directly relevant to a material issue in the case. The correct answer is C. This question involves impeachment by contradiction. The general rule is that extrinsic evidence is not admissible to impeach a witness on a collateral matter. A matter is collateral if it is not relevant to a substantive issue in the case. Here, whether the chef was supervising the kitchen as he claimed is directly relevant to the substantive issue of whether the restaurant was negligent in its food handling. Therefore, the matter is not collateral, and extrinsic evidence (the new witness's testimony) is admissible to contradict the chef's testimony. A is incorrect because the matter is not collateral. B states a non-existent rule. D is too broad; extrinsic evidence is not permitted for contradiction on collateral matters.
7. The defense attorney objects to the question. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.
   Answer: Sustain the objection, because this is an improper attempt to use character evidence to prove action in conformity therewith. The correct answer is B. The question is an attempt to introduce evidence of the officer's prior bad acts (using excessive force) to suggest that he acted in conformity with that character trait on this occasion. This is prohibited by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(1). A is correct that complaints are not convictions, but B provides the more fundamental reason for exclusion: it's improper propensity evidence. C is incorrect because using excessive force is not an act that is probative of one's character for truthfulness under FRE 608(b). D is a possible argument under FRE 404(b)(2), but in the context of impeachment on cross-examination, the primary issue is the propensity bar. Given the context of impeaching the officer's testimony, the most direct and likely basis for sustaining the objection is the propensity rule.
8. The defendant's attorney objects to the introduction of the tax fraud conviction. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.
   Answer: Overrule the objection, because the conviction was for a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement. The correct answer is D. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2), evidence of a criminal conviction must be admitted if the elements of the crime required proving a dishonest act or false statement. Tax fraud is a classic example of such a crime. For these types of convictions, the court has no discretion to exclude the evidence and does not perform the balancing tests described in FRE 609(a)(1) or FRE 403. A and C are incorrect because the balancing tests do not apply to convictions under FRE 609(a)(2). B is incorrect because the type of felony (violent vs. non-violent) is not the determining factor for crimes of dishonesty.
9. The defendant's attorney objects. How must the court rule on the admissibility of the manslaughter conviction? Select one.
   Answer: The conviction is admissible if its probative value as to credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. When you encounter impeachment questions involving prior convictions, you need to understand Federal Rule of Evidence 609, which has different standards depending on the type of crime and who's being impeached. For felony convictions used to impeach a criminal defendant (as opposed to other witnesses), Rule 609(a)(1)(B) requires a heightened balancing test. The prosecution must show that the probative value of the conviction for assessing credibility outweighs—not just "substantially outweighs"—the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. This is a more defense-friendly standard that makes admission harder. Answer A correctly states this standard. The court must weigh whether the probative value outweighs (not substantially outweighs) the prejudicial effect, which is the proper test when impeaching a criminal defendant with a prior felony. Answer B is wrong because Rule 609 doesn't require that felonies involve dishonesty to be admissible for impeachment—that's only required for misdemeanors under Rule 609(a)(2). Answer C is incorrect because it suggests automatic admission. While the 8-year-old conviction is within the 10-year limit, felonies still require the balancing test when used against criminal defendants. Answer D uses the wrong balancing standard. "Substantially outweighs" is the test for impeaching other witnesses under Rule 609(a)(1)(A), but when impeaching a criminal defendant, the standard flips to favor exclusion—probative value must outweigh prejudice. Remember: Rule 609 has different balancing tests depending on who you're impeaching. Criminal defendants get extra protection with the more restrictive "outweighs" standard rather than "substantially outweighs."
10. The defense attorney now seeks to introduce the relevant portion of the witness's deposition transcript into evidence. The prosecution objects. How should the court rule? Select one.
    Answer: Overrule the objection, because the deposition transcript is admissible both to impeach the witness and as substantive evidence. The correct answer is C. The deposition transcript contains a prior inconsistent statement. Under FRE 613, extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible to impeach if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny it, which happened here. Furthermore, under FRE 801(d)(1)(A), a prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay (and is thus admissible as substantive evidence) if the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross-examination, and the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition. A deposition meets these criteria. A is incorrect because the identity of the arsonist is a central, not collateral, issue. B is incorrect because the statement falls under the hearsay exemption of 801(d)(1)(A). D is correct in its reasoning but incomplete, as C provides a more complete explanation of the statement's admissibility for both impeachment and substantive purposes.
11. The prosecutor objects to the question. What is the defendant's best argument for why the question is permissible? Select one.
    Answer: The question is a permissible attempt to impeach the witness by showing a deficiency in sensory capacity. The correct answer is B. Impeachment can be accomplished by showing that the witness had a defect in their capacity to perceive, recall, or relate the events about which they are testifying. A witness's poor eyesight is a classic example of a sensory deficiency that is a proper subject for impeachment on cross-examination. A is incorrect because this is not an inquiry into conduct related to truthfulness under FRE 608(b). C is incorrect as there is no indication of bias. D is incorrect as the question does not refer to any prior statement by the witness.
12. The defendant's attorney objects to the testimony of the second witness. How should the court rule? Select one.
    Answer: Overrule the objection, because the impeachment by a felony conviction was an attack on the witness's character for truthfulness. The correct answer is D. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a), evidence of a witness's truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked. Impeachment with a criminal conviction under FRE 609, particularly a crime of dishonesty like mail fraud, is considered an attack on the witness's character for truthfulness. Therefore, the door has been opened for the plaintiff to introduce reputation evidence to rehabilitate the witness. A is incorrect as the rule is not limited to impeachment by prior inconsistent statement. B is incorrect because impeachment under FRE 609 is a direct attack on character for truthfulness. C is incorrect because such rehabilitating evidence is only admissible after an attack on character.
13. The defense objects to the use of the juvenile adjudication. How should the court rule? Select one.
    Answer: The evidence is inadmissible because it is being offered to impeach the defendant himself. The correct answer is D. Federal Rule of Evidence 609(d) severely restricts the use of juvenile adjudications for impeachment. The rule states that evidence of a juvenile adjudication is never admissible if it is offered to impeach the defendant in a criminal case. While there is a narrow exception for using a juvenile adjudication to impeach a witness other than the defendant in a criminal case, that exception does not apply here. Therefore, the evidence must be excluded. A is incorrect because even if burglary were considered a crime of dishonesty, the specific prohibition in FRE 609(d) controls. B is incorrect for the same reason. C is slightly too broad; there is a narrow exception for non-defendant witnesses, but D is the most precise reason for exclusion in this specific scenario.
14. The plaintiff's attorney objects, arguing that the treatise is inadmissible hearsay. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.
    Answer: Overrule the objection, because using the treatise to cross-examine the expert is a permissible method of impeachment. The correct answer is C. This is a permissible method of impeaching an expert witness. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18), statements in a learned treatise, periodical, or pamphlet are not excluded by the hearsay rule if an expert witness relies on the publication during direct examination or it is called to the expert's attention on cross-examination, and the publication is established as a reliable authority. Here, the expert acknowledged the treatise as authoritative. It can be used to impeach her by contradiction. Moreover, under the rule, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit, and it is considered substantive evidence. C is the best answer because the primary purpose in this context is impeachment. A is incorrect because FRE 803(18) provides a specific hearsay exception. B is incorrect because the rule does not require the author to be called. D is incorrect because the applicable exception is for learned treatises, not business records.
15. How should the court rule on the plaintiff's objection? Select one.
    Answer: Overrule the objection, because a witness who has been impeached must be given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency. When you encounter questions about witness impeachment and rehabilitation, focus on the fundamental fairness principle: a witness who has been attacked must have a reasonable opportunity to defend their credibility. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, when a witness is impeached with a prior inconsistent statement, they must be given a chance to explain or deny the statement. This can happen during the impeachment itself or later during redirect examination. The question "Why did you make that earlier statement?" directly serves this rehabilitative purpose, allowing the witness to provide context that might reconcile the apparent inconsistency or explain innocent reasons for the contradiction. Answer A is correct because it reflects this established rule. The witness has been impeached and now deserves the opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the prior statement. Answer B misapplies hearsay concepts. The witness's explanation of their own prior statement isn't hearsay—they're not offering the earlier statement for its truth, but explaining why they made it. The "self-serving" objection also doesn't apply here since rehabilitation after impeachment is specifically permitted. Answer C incorrectly suggests that once impeachment occurs, no explanation is allowed. This contradicts the fundamental fairness principle and the explicit rules allowing rehabilitation. Answer D overstates the scope of redirect. While redirect can address matters raised on cross-examination, it's not unlimited in scope. However, this question properly falls within redirect's rehabilitative function. Remember: impeachment and rehabilitation work as paired concepts on the bar exam. When you see impeachment, always consider whether the witness will get a fair chance to respond.
16. The plaintiff's attorney objects to the admission of this conviction. How should the court rule on the admissibility of the witness's prior conviction? Select one.
    Answer: It is admissible if its probative value for impeachment is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The correct answer is C. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(A), for a witness who is not a criminal defendant, evidence of a felony conviction (a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year) must be admitted for impeachment, subject to the balancing test of FRE 403. The FRE 403 test states that evidence should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. A is incorrect because while aggravated assault is not a crime of dishonesty, other felonies are admissible under 609(a)(1). B incorrectly states the conclusion of the 403 test without acknowledging it's a balancing test the judge must perform. D states the stricter balancing test from FRE 609(a)(1)(B), which applies only when the witness is a criminal defendant.
17. The defense counsel now wants to call the witness's employer to testify that the witness's job application did, in fact, contain a false claim about a college degree. The prosecution objects. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.
    Answer: Sustain the objection, because the defense is attempting to introduce extrinsic evidence of a specific act to attack the witness's character for truthfulness. The correct answer is A. Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) permits inquiry into specific instances of a witness's conduct on cross-examination if they are probative of the witness's character for truthfulness. However, the rule explicitly prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence to prove such specific instances. Here, calling the employer to testify would be introducing extrinsic evidence, which is inadmissible under FRE 608(b). B is incorrect because the evidence is relevant to the witness's credibility, which is always at issue. C is incorrect because a witness's denial of misconduct on cross-examination does not "open the door" to extrinsic evidence that is otherwise barred by a specific rule like FRE 608(b). D is incorrect because there are no facts to suggest the job application lie creates a motive to testify for the prosecution; it is purely an attack on general credibility.
18. The prosecution objects to the admission of the victim's perjury conviction. How should the court rule? Select one.
    Answer: Overrule the objection, because the victim's credibility can be attacked as if the victim had testified in court. The correct answer is C. Federal Rule of Evidence 806 provides that when a hearsay statement is admitted, the declarant's credibility may be attacked, and then supported, by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness. Here, the victim is a hearsay declarant. A prior conviction for perjury is a crime of dishonesty under FRE 609(a)(2) and would have been mandatorily admissible to impeach the victim if they had testified live. Therefore, it is admissible to impeach the victim's dying declaration. A is incorrect because FRE 806 specifically allows for the impeachment of a hearsay declarant, including one who is deceased. B and D state irrelevant considerations.
19. The driver's attorney objects on the ground that the question is an improper character attack. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.
    Answer: Overrule the objection, because the question is permissible to show the witness's potential bias in favor of the driver. The correct answer is C. Impeachment by showing bias, interest, or motive is a permissible and common method of impeachment. A close relationship, such as being a party's sibling, is highly probative of potential bias. This line of questioning is not considered a character attack under FRE 608 or 609. A is incorrect because the question is not aimed at character for truthfulness, but at bias. B is incorrect because no special foundation is needed to inquire into a witness's relationship with a party. D is too broad; while credibility is a key issue, there are limits on impeachment (e.g., the bar on extrinsic evidence for collateral matters). The specific reason this question is proper is that it targets bias.
20. The defense attorney objects to the prosecutor's question. What is the best basis for the objection? Select one.
    Answer: An arrest that did not result in a conviction is not a permissible subject for impeachment. The correct answer is A. Impeachment cannot be based on a mere arrest. FRE 609 allows impeachment with evidence of a conviction for a crime. FRE 608(b) allows inquiry into specific instances of conduct probative of untruthfulness, but a mere arrest is not itself conduct of the witness; it is conduct by the police. Therefore, asking about a mere arrest is improper impeachment. B is incorrect because while shoplifting is often treated as not being a 609(a)(2) crime, the primary issue is the lack of a conviction. C is a true statement but A is more specific and the direct reason the question is improper in this context. D is also likely true, but the question is improper on its face, regardless of any balancing test, because an arrest is not a proper subject for impeachment.

Start this quiz