During a criminal trial, after the prosecution attacked a key defense witness's character for truthfulness on cross-examination, the defense seeks to rehabilitate the witness. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, what is the proper method for the defense to introduce evidence of the witness's truthful character?
Introduce extrinsic evidence of specific instances where the witness acted honestly.
Introduce testimony regarding the witness's reputation for truthfulness.
Present expert testimony on the general psychology of honesty.
Have the witness testify about their own track record of honesty.
The correct answer is to introduce testimony about the witness's reputation for truthfulness. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a), after a witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked, it may be supported by testimony about the witness's reputation for having a truthful character or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) expressly prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to support a witness's character for truthfulness. Expert testimony on general human honesty is not the appropriate method for proving an individual witness's character, and a witness's own self-serving statements are not a permissible form of character evidence.
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 meant by 'reputation for truthfulness' in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is evidence of past unrelated honest acts less effective than reputation evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the rules of evidence that govern the introduction of character evidence?