Home
Because I'm so enamored with Ms. Patton, I decided to devote today's journal to a cross that we made together. Ah, memories. Mr. Duncan, before we talk about your involvement in today's case, I'd like to talk to you about something that happened in 2006. You were charged with two felonies that year, weren't you?
The first was for smuggling narcotics into the country, correct?
And the second, was for making a false statement to a US customs official, is that right?
You pled guilty to both of these counts, correct?
Now, you are likely to get a relevance or an improper character evidence objection to this pocket. Here is how you handle that:
I. Relevance. This is being used for impeachment purposes and is thus relevant because it goes to the truthfulness of the witness. And, truthfulness, of course, is always relevant to allow the members of the jury to properly evaluate how much weight they should give to this witness.
II. Improper character evidence.
A. for count #1, the smuggling according to Midlands Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(a), any evidence of a crime that is punishable for more than a year in prison MUST be admitted for impeachment purposes. Because this count is a felony, thus punishable with more than 1 year in prison, it is admissible under this rule.
B. for count #2, technically the reasoning above also works as this is also a felony. However, even more convincingly, Rule 609(a)(2) says that any crime that establishes a witness's character for untruthfulness must once again be admitted regardless of the punishment it carries. As count #2 involved making false statements to a US customs official, it most certainly goes to show the witness's character for untruthfulness and is thus admissible.
In addition to this, I would just like to state that today's professional workshop was incredibly interesting and informative, but also rather sobering.
The first was for smuggling narcotics into the country, correct?
And the second, was for making a false statement to a US customs official, is that right?
You pled guilty to both of these counts, correct?
Now, you are likely to get a relevance or an improper character evidence objection to this pocket. Here is how you handle that:
I. Relevance. This is being used for impeachment purposes and is thus relevant because it goes to the truthfulness of the witness. And, truthfulness, of course, is always relevant to allow the members of the jury to properly evaluate how much weight they should give to this witness.
II. Improper character evidence.
A. for count #1, the smuggling according to Midlands Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)(a), any evidence of a crime that is punishable for more than a year in prison MUST be admitted for impeachment purposes. Because this count is a felony, thus punishable with more than 1 year in prison, it is admissible under this rule.
B. for count #2, technically the reasoning above also works as this is also a felony. However, even more convincingly, Rule 609(a)(2) says that any crime that establishes a witness's character for untruthfulness must once again be admitted regardless of the punishment it carries. As count #2 involved making false statements to a US customs official, it most certainly goes to show the witness's character for untruthfulness and is thus admissible.
In addition to this, I would just like to state that today's professional workshop was incredibly interesting and informative, but also rather sobering.
