Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Impeachment Methods
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Impeachment MethodsQuestion 1 of 20

A defendant is on trial for bank robbery. The defendant chooses to testify in his own defense. The prosecution seeks to impeach the defendant's credibility by introducing evidence of his prior conviction for felony tax fraud, which occurred three years ago.

The defendant's attorney objects to the introduction of the tax fraud conviction. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.

Sustain the objection, because the probative value of the conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Sustain the objection, because the conviction is not for a felony involving violence or theft.
Overrule the objection, because the probative value of the conviction for impeachment outweighs its prejudicial effect on the defendant.
Overrule the objection, because the conviction was for a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Impeachment Methods

Practice Impeachment Methods in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Impeachment Methods, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A defendant is on trial for bank robbery. The defendant chooses to testify in his own defense. The prosecution seeks to impeach the defendant's credibility by introducing evidence of his prior conviction for felony tax fraud, which occurred three years ago.

The defendant's attorney objects to the introduction of the tax fraud conviction. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the probative value of the conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the conviction is not for a felony involving violence or theft.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the probative value of the conviction for impeachment outweighs its prejudicial effect on the defendant.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the conviction was for a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 2

In a trial for securities fraud, the prosecution calls an accountant as a witness. To impeach the accountant, the defense wishes to introduce evidence that the accountant was convicted of felony counterfeiting 12 years ago. The accountant was released from prison 11 years ago. The defense provided proper written notice to the prosecution of its intent to use this conviction.

Is evidence of this conviction likely to be admissible to impeach the accountant? Select one.

  1. Yes, because counterfeiting is a crime involving dishonesty, so its admission is mandatory.
  2. Yes, if the court determines that its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. (correct answer)
  3. No, because more than 10 years have passed since the conviction.
  4. No, because the conviction is for a crime that is not relevant to the witness's expertise as an accountant.
Explanation: 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.

Question 3

A plaintiff sued a restaurant for food poisoning. At trial, the restaurant's chef testified that all food handling procedures were followed on the day in question. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney asked, "Isn't it true that you were walking your dog at the park when you were supposed to be supervising the kitchen?" The chef denied this. The plaintiff's attorney now seeks to call a witness who will testify that she saw the chef at the dog park during the relevant time.

The restaurant's attorney objects to the proposed testimony of the new witness. How should the court rule? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because this is an attempt to introduce extrinsic evidence to prove a collateral matter.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the plaintiff failed to confront the chef with the identity of the new witness during cross-examination.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the chef's whereabouts are directly relevant to a material issue in the case. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because a party is always permitted to introduce evidence to contradict a witness's testimony.
Explanation: 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.

Question 4

In a contract dispute, a witness for the defendant testifies on direct examination that the plaintiff made a certain oral promise. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney impeaches the witness with a prior inconsistent statement. On redirect, the defendant's attorney asks the witness, "Why did you make that earlier statement?" The plaintiff's attorney objects.

How should the court rule on the plaintiff's objection? Select one.

  1. Overrule the objection, because a witness who has been impeached must be given an opportunity to explain the inconsistency. (correct answer)
  2. Sustain the objection, because the question calls for a self-serving hearsay response.
  3. Sustain the objection, because the witness's reasons are irrelevant once the inconsistency has been established.
  4. Overrule the objection, because redirect examination is not limited in scope and may cover any relevant matter.
Explanation: 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.

Question 5

In a federal robbery trial, the prosecution's key witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator. On cross-examination, defense counsel sought to impeach the witness. The defense counsel asked, "Isn't it true that you lied on your application for your current job last year by claiming you had a college degree?" The witness denied having done so.

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.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the defense is attempting to introduce extrinsic evidence of a specific act to attack the witness's character for truthfulness. (correct answer)
  2. Sustain the objection, because the witness's job application is not relevant to the robbery charge against the defendant.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the witness "opened the door" to this evidence by denying the conduct on cross-examination.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the employer's testimony is admissible as evidence of the witness's motive to testify favorably for the prosecution.
Explanation: 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.

Question 6

A defendant is on trial for bank robbery. The defendant testifies and denies involvement. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks, "Isn't it true that five years ago, you were arrested for shoplifting?" The defendant was arrested but never charged with the crime.

The defense attorney objects to the prosecutor's question. What is the best basis for the objection? Select one.

  1. An arrest that did not result in a conviction is not a permissible subject for impeachment. (correct answer)
  2. Shoplifting is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.
  3. The question is an improper attempt to introduce evidence of the defendant's character.
  4. The probative value of the arrest is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
Explanation: 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.

Question 7

A defendant is on trial for assault. The defendant, who is 26 years old, testifies in his own defense. The prosecutor seeks to impeach him with evidence that when the defendant was 17, he was adjudicated delinquent in a juvenile court proceeding for an act that would have been felony burglary if committed by an adult.

The defense objects to the use of the juvenile adjudication. How should the court rule? Select one.

  1. The evidence is admissible because burglary is a crime of dishonesty.
  2. The evidence is admissible because it is being offered in a criminal case against the defendant.
  3. The evidence is inadmissible because juvenile adjudications are never admissible against a defendant.
  4. The evidence is inadmissible because it is being offered to impeach the defendant himself. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 8

A defendant is on trial for bank robbery. The defendant chooses to testify in his own defense. The prosecution seeks to impeach the defendant's credibility by introducing evidence of his prior conviction for felony tax fraud, which occurred three years ago.

The defendant's attorney objects to the introduction of the tax fraud conviction. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the probative value of the conviction is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the conviction is not for a felony involving violence or theft.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the probative value of the conviction for impeachment outweighs its prejudicial effect on the defendant.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the conviction was for a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement. (correct answer)
Explanation: 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.

Question 9

In a products liability case, the plaintiff's expert witness testifies that the defendant's product had a manufacturing defect. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks the expert about a statement in a leading engineering treatise, which the expert acknowledges is an authoritative source in her field. The statement in the treatise contradicts the expert's opinion about the alleged defect.

The plaintiff's attorney objects, arguing that the treatise is inadmissible hearsay. How should the court rule on the objection? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because a treatise is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth and is therefore hearsay.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the defense has not called the author of the treatise to testify.
  3. Overrule the objection, because using the treatise to cross-examine the expert is a permissible method of impeachment. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because the treatise is admissible for its truth under the business records exception.
Explanation: 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.

Question 10

In a civil rights lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that a police officer used excessive force. The officer testifies and denies the allegation. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's lawyer asks the officer, "Isn't it true that the police department's internal affairs division sustained three prior complaints against you for using excessive force?" The officer was not criminally charged or convicted in relation to those incidents.

The defense attorney objects to the question. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because prior complaints are not convictions and are therefore inadmissible for impeachment.
  2. Sustain the objection, because this is an improper attempt to use character evidence to prove action in conformity therewith. (correct answer)
  3. Overrule the objection, because the prior complaints are specific instances of conduct probative of the officer's character for untruthfulness.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the evidence could be admissible for a non-character purpose such as proving intent or absence of mistake.
Explanation: 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.

Question 11

At trial, a witness for the plaintiff testifies that the defendant's car was blue. The defense wishes to impeach the witness. The defense calls a second witness to testify that immediately after the accident, the first witness, who was visibly shaken, screamed, "Oh my gosh, that green car ran the light!"

The plaintiff's attorney objects to the second witness's testimony on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the statement is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, which is that the car was green.
  2. Sustain the objection, unless the court finds that the statement qualifies as a dying declaration.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the statement is not being offered for its truth, but to show the first witness made a prior inconsistent statement. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because the statement qualifies for the hearsay exception for a then-existing state of mind.
Explanation: 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.

Question 12

In a federal robbery trial, the prosecution's key witness identified the defendant as the perpetrator. On cross-examination, defense counsel sought to impeach the witness. The defense counsel asked, "Isn't it true that you lied on your application for your current job last year by claiming you had a college degree?" The witness denied having done so.

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.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the defense is attempting to introduce extrinsic evidence of a specific act to attack the witness's character for truthfulness. (correct answer)
  2. Sustain the objection, because the witness's job application is not relevant to the robbery charge against the defendant.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the witness "opened the door" to this evidence by denying the conduct on cross-examination.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the employer's testimony is admissible as evidence of the witness's motive to testify favorably for the prosecution.
Explanation: 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.

Question 13

A defendant is on trial in federal court for felony possession of a firearm. The defendant testifies that the gun found in his apartment was planted by a rival. To impeach the defendant, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence of the defendant's 8-year-old felony conviction for voluntary manslaughter.

The defendant's attorney objects. How must the court rule on the admissibility of the manslaughter conviction? Select one.

  1. The conviction is admissible if its probative value as to credibility outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant. (correct answer)
  2. The conviction must be excluded because voluntary manslaughter is not a crime involving dishonesty.
  3. The conviction must be admitted because it is a felony within the 10-year time limit.
  4. The conviction is admissible if its probative value as to credibility is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
Explanation: 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."

Question 14

In a civil trial for battery, the plaintiff calls a witness who testifies that she saw the defendant strike the plaintiff. On cross-examination, the defendant's attorney seeks to introduce evidence that the witness has a six-year-old felony conviction for aggravated assault.

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.

  1. It is inadmissible, because it is not a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.
  2. It is inadmissible, because its probative value for impeachment is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
  3. It is admissible if its probative value for impeachment is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. (correct answer)
  4. It is admissible only if its probative value for impeachment outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Explanation: 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.

Question 15

In a federal trial for arson, a witness for the prosecution testified that he saw the defendant near the scene of the fire shortly before it started. During a pre-trial deposition taken under oath, the same witness had stated that he did not get a good look at the person's face. At trial, on cross-examination, the witness denies ever having said he did not get a good look.

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.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the deposition transcript is inadmissible extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the deposition transcript is inadmissible hearsay.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the deposition transcript is admissible both to impeach the witness and as substantive evidence. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because the witness was given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
Explanation: 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.

Question 16

In a federal murder trial, the prosecution introduced a statement from the victim, made just before death, identifying the defendant as the shooter. The statement was admitted under the dying declaration exception to the hearsay rule. The defendant now seeks to introduce a certified copy of a judgment showing that the victim, who is now deceased, was convicted of felony perjury five years ago.

The prosecution objects to the admission of the victim's perjury conviction. How should the court rule? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because a deceased person cannot be impeached.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the conviction is unfairly prejudicial and its admission would violate the victim's rights.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the victim's credibility can be attacked as if the victim had testified in court. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, but only if the defense can show the victim was aware of the conviction's effect on their credibility.
Explanation: 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.

Question 17

A plaintiff sued a driver for negligence following a car accident. At trial, a witness for the driver testified that the plaintiff ran a red light. The witness is the driver's sister. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney asks, "You are the defendant's sister, correct?"

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.

  1. Sustain the objection, because a familial relationship is not probative of a witness's character for truthfulness.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the plaintiff's attorney has not laid a proper foundation to attack the witness's character.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the question is permissible to show the witness's potential bias in favor of the driver. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because any fact that could affect a witness's credibility is a permissible subject of cross-examination.
Explanation: 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.

Question 18

A defendant is being prosecuted for assault. On direct examination, a witness for the prosecution testifies, "I saw the entire incident from my apartment window across the street, which was about 150 feet away, and the lighting was good." On cross-examination, the defense attorney seeks to ask the witness, "Isn't it true that you have a vision impairment and were not wearing your corrective lenses on the night of the incident?"

The prosecutor objects to the question. What is the defendant's best argument for why the question is permissible? Select one.

  1. The question is a permissible inquiry into a specific instance of conduct probative of the witness's untruthfulness.
  2. The question is a permissible attempt to impeach the witness by showing a deficiency in sensory capacity. (correct answer)
  3. The question is permissible to establish the witness's bias against the defendant.
  4. The question is permissible because it relates to a prior inconsistent statement made by the witness.
Explanation: 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.

Question 19

In a personal injury case, an eyewitness to the accident testified for the plaintiff. On direct examination, she stated that the defendant's car was speeding. On cross-examination, the defense attorney accused her of fabricating her testimony in exchange for a portion of the plaintiff's potential recovery. The witness vehemently denied this. The plaintiff's attorney now seeks to introduce testimony from the witness's friend that, two days after the accident but long before the lawsuit was filed, the witness told the friend that the defendant's car was speeding.

The defense objects to the friend's testimony. How is the court most likely to rule? Select one.

  1. Sustain the objection, because the friend's testimony is inadmissible hearsay.
  2. Sustain the objection, because a party cannot use a prior statement to bolster the credibility of its own witness.
  3. Overrule the objection, because the statement is admissible to rebut the charge of recent fabrication. (correct answer)
  4. Overrule the objection, because the statement qualifies as an excited utterance or present sense impression.
Explanation: 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.

Question 20

In a trial for securities fraud, the prosecution calls an accountant as a witness. To impeach the accountant, the defense wishes to introduce evidence that the accountant was convicted of felony counterfeiting 12 years ago. The accountant was released from prison 11 years ago. The defense provided proper written notice to the prosecution of its intent to use this conviction.

Is evidence of this conviction likely to be admissible to impeach the accountant? Select one.

  1. Yes, because counterfeiting is a crime involving dishonesty, so its admission is mandatory.
  2. Yes, if the court determines that its probative value substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. (correct answer)
  3. No, because more than 10 years have passed since the conviction.
  4. No, because the conviction is for a crime that is not relevant to the witness's expertise as an accountant.
Explanation: 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.