During a civil fraud trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of an out-of-court statement by a former employee of the defendant. The statement was admitted under a hearsay exception because the declarant was unavailable to testify. During cross-examination, the defense attempts to introduce evidence that the declarant had been convicted of prior fraudulent conduct. The prosecution objects. How should the court rule on the objection?
The objection should be overruled because prior fraudulent conduct is inherently relevant to the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
The objection should be sustained because the declarant, being unavailable, cannot personally defend their credibility.
The objection should be sustained because the Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit impeachment of unavailable declarants.
The objection should be overruled because the defense is permitted to impeach the credibility of the declarant with evidence of prior fraudulent conduct.
The objection should be overruled because the declarant's credibility may be impeached in the same manner as if they had testified in court. Even though the declarant is not physically present, their out-of-court statement, admitted as hearsay, is subject to the same scrutiny as an in-court statement. Evidence of prior fraudulent conduct can be used to challenge the declarant’s character for truthfulness. The other options are incorrect because they misunderstand the rules of impeaching hearsay declarants. For example, excluding this impeachment evidence would unfairly shield the declarant’s credibility from being tested, something the rules explicitly allow.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is hearsay in the context of legal trials?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean to impeach a witness's credibility?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the Federal Rules of Evidence, and how do they apply to this case?