On cross-examination, a witness for the prosecution denies having been terminated from their prior employment for embezzling funds. The defense attorney then calls the witness's former employer to the stand to testify that the witness was, in fact, terminated for embezzlement. The prosecution objects to the employer's testimony. Is the employer's testimony admissible?
No, because the proposed testimony is irrelevant to the current charges.
Yes, because it is a specific instance of conduct that is probative of the witness's character for untruthfulness.
No, because extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove a specific instance of conduct for the purpose of attacking a witness's credibility.
Yes, because the witness 'opened the door' to this testimony by denying the allegation on the stand.
The correct answer is that the employer's testimony is inadmissible. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), while a party may inquire into specific instances of a witness's conduct on cross-examination if they are probative of the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove such conduct. Here, the defense attorney was permitted to ask the witness about the termination for embezzlement, but once the witness denied it, the attorney is bound by the answer and cannot introduce extrinsic evidence, such as the former employer's testimony, to prove the specific instance of conduct. Therefore, the employer's testimony must be excluded.
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 are specific instances of conduct in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is impeachment in the context of a trial?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the hearsay rule, and why doesn't it apply here?