During a civil trial, the defense calls a witness to testify for the defendant. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney asks the witness about a fraud conviction that occurred three years earlier. The defense objects. How should the court rule?
The court should disallow the question, because convictions for fraud require a stricter admissibility standard for impeachment.
The court should allow the question, because the fraud conviction is admissible to impeach the witness's credibility as a crime of dishonesty.
The court should allow the question only because fraud is a particularly serious offense.
The court should disallow the question, because the fraud conviction does not directly relate to credibility in this lawsuit.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(2), evidence of any conviction whose elements require proving a dishonest act or false statement-such as fraud-must be admitted for the purpose of impeaching a witness's credibility, regardless of whether the crime was a felony or misdemeanor. Because the conviction is only three years old, Rule 609(b)'s 10-year limitation does not apply. The objection should therefore be overruled. The incorrect answers either bar the evidence despite the rule's mandatory language or rely on considerations (e.g., seriousness of the offense or additional admissibility criteria) that are irrelevant when the conviction involves dishonesty or false statements.
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 impeachment of a witness in a trial?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the Federal Rules of Evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the significance of a witness's prior conviction?