Impeachment as to Prior Crimes in Civil Trials

In a civil trial, I want to attack (impeach) the credibility of a testifying witness by bringing up a crime that witness committed. Can I do this? When it comes to impeaching the credibility of a witness based on crimes, Florida Statute s. 90.610 states in material part: (1) A party may attack the credibility of any witness, including an accused, by evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which the witness was convicted, or if the crime involved dishonesty or...

20 August

0 Comments

Sticky

Foundation Required to Admit Prior Inconsistent Statement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

One of the most effective impeachment vehicles to attack the credibility of a testifying witness is the prior inconsistent statement. A prior inconsistent statement is exactly what it seems – a statement previously made by the witness on a material issue that directly contradicts with what the witness is testifying to at trial. The point of impeaching the witness with the prior inconsistent statement is to show the witness’ trial testimony is not credible—they are lying. By attacking the credibility, you leave doubts in the trier of fact’s mind (e.g., jury) that the witness’ trial testimony needs to be discounted...

05 July

0 Comments

Sticky

Impeaching (Attacking Witness’s Credibility) with a Prior Inconsistent Statement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Impeachment is the art of attacking a testifying witness's credibility or truthfulness at trial. One of the most common forms of impeachment during cross-examination at trial is with a prior inconsistent statement, such as deposition or affidavit testimony. The objective of impeachment is to establish that the witness is not a trustworthy witness, hence the reason it is referred to as attacking the witness’s credibility! A prior inconsistent statement made by a testifying witness is a great way to attack that witness’s credibility at trial. See Elmer v. State, 114 So.3d 198, 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). (“It is axiomatic...

12 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Inadmissible Subsequent Remedial Measures

Posted by David Adelstein

in Evidence

Sometimes plaintiffs try to introduce evidence of subsequent remedial measures a defendant undertook after a defective condition caused an injury or damage to prove the existence of the defective condition and the culpability of the defendant. In other words, the plaintiff wants to show that if the remedial measure was performed to the defective condition prior to the injury or damage the injury or damage would probably not have occurred. This evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible subject to an impeachment exception (where the evidence is not admitted as substantive evidence but to impeach a witness). To this...