74 During discovery, a party obtans evidence that an adverse Witness fabricated

Question

74 During discovery, a party obtans evidence that an adverse Witness fabricated items on his resume when he appied for his current job, falsely clalming to have a degree from a prestigious school. Which of the following methods of impeachment is not permissible? A. Asking the witness on crioss-examination whether he listed the school in question on his resume and whether he actualy attended that school, ff the witness denies any falsity and claims he did attend the school, asking detailed follow-up questions about the school in question as what dorm he was in, who his advisor was, etc., to try te expose the falsehood. B. C. it the witness denies any falsity and clairms he did attend the school, calling the Registrar from the school to testify that the witness never attended , The defendant is on trial on a charge of Importing cocaine. The proseciution tras subpoenaed the defendant's former wile as a witness. They divorced two months before trial.While they were married, the wife overheard her husband talking on the telephone with his sounce in Colombia, placing an order for a delvery of cocaine. Alone in the room with her husband, she asked him whether he was dealing in drugs. He ndmitted that he was. On another occasion she saw him hand a smali valise containing bundlies of hundred dollar bills to a man who came to their home late at night. Which of the following statements is not true? The husband may object to his wife testifying about his admission that he was dealing drugs because it was a privileged conversation conversation with the source in Colombia, because it was a privileged conversation that took place in the marital home. grounds to the wifes observation of the cash payrment have refused to be a witness against her husband. A. 8. The husbarid may successfully object to his wife testifying about his C. The juelge should overrule the husband's objection on privilege O. If the case had come to trial three months previously the wife could

Explanation / Answer

74. The issue here is that the party's witness has a significant evidence saying that the educational qualification on the resume was fabricated when applying for the job. We need to find what questions are not permissible and impermissible.

A. It is permissible because it would be quite obvious to ask the witness if he or she had attended the said school on the resume. The cross-examination is necessary to get the person's claims in the court.

B. Permissible because it is necessary to cross-examine the party with a follow-up question to expose the falsehood. For example, what was his major, advisor's name, and cafeteria location etc.,? These are all necessary questions to ask the party to expose the witness's lie as said earlier.

C. One cannot call the registrar and confirm anything and make a decision about impeachment. Since this evidence might be external evidence obtained extraneously. It can be obtained away from the court and provided with an evidence earlier at some point with paper documents, but at the situation the question is impermissible. The witness has not even proved if he or she lied or not, hence, since it is yet to be proved we cannot conclude for impeachment using this option. So, this is an impermissible question for impeachment.

C is the correct answer.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 7
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.