Evidence Essay 2

Should the judge have permitted P to question Witness about Witness’s written statement and
admitted the copy of the statement to impeach Witness’s credibility?

 Yes
 The written statement was taken during regular investigation at police headquarters
 Testimonial?
 A witness’s credibility may be attacked by any party
 A party may impeach a witness with the witness’s prior statements that are inconsistent
with a material part of her present testimony
 This testimony is inconsistent with the written statement in which witness implicated
defendant
 The foundational requirement is that the witness generally must be given an
opportunity at some point to explain or deny the inconsistent statement
 This witness was presumably given the opportunity to explain or deny
 Therefore, the judge should have permitted prosecution to question witness about
witness’s statement and admitted a copy of the statement to impeach witness’s
credibility
Should the judge have admitted Witness’s written statement to prove that Defendant was in
City Park and attacked Victim?

 Yes
 Yes and no because the statement identifying D is admissible, but the rest is inadmissible
hearsay
 Hearsay is an out of court statement that is offered into evidence to prove the truth of
the matter asserted. However, hearsay can be admissible if it falls within an exception.
 The evidence at issue here is a written statement that is being offered for its truth, that
witness saw D in city park and that she saw defendant attacking victim
 A witness’s prior statement identifying a. person as someone the witness perceieved
earlier is not hearsay if the witness testifies at trial and is subject to cross examination –
therefore, this should be admitted
 However, at a prior hearing, the statement that “I saw D attack V and then run away with
V’s bag” was not made under penalty of perjury at a prior hearing so this is inadmissible
Should the judge have admitted Buddy’s testimony to prove Defendant’s character for honesty
and gentleness?

 No
 This character evidence
 A criminal defendant may introduce evidence by witness testimony of a relevant
character trait to show his innocence
 Here the traits are relevant to the alleged crimes, as honesty is probably relevant to the
robbery charge, and gentleness is relevant to the assault and robbery charges
 However, the permissible methods are defendant’s good reputation for the trait in the
community or a witness’s personal opinion
 Buddy’s testimony here does not fall into either of these two permissible categories
because B’s friends do not represent the community at large and B is testifying as to his
friends’ opinion of D’s character and not his own
 Therefore, the judge should not have admitted B’s testimony because it is not proper
reputation or opinion evidence