TTTBE #74: Early Answer for Patrons
Added 2018-05-06 23:07:42 +0000 UTCThis was an evidence question about the admissibility of prior bad acts -- in this case, the fact that the plaintiff in an automobile accident case had, in fact, been cited twice in the past year for failing to stop at a stop sign.
The answer, as almost all of you got correctly, was "A," and pretty much for the reasons Andrew Seidel explained during the show.
In fact, Thomas's reaction -- that yeah, you'd want to know about stuff like that -- helps explain why this sort of testimony is typically excluded; these sorts of prior bad acts are very prejudicial before the jury.
The operative rule here is Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which allows this sort of testimony on cross-examination if it is "probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of the witness." Here, failing to stop at a stop sign doesn't suggest that the witness is generally untruthful, which is answer "A."
None of the other answers were close, really.
Thomas is now 41-for-74 (55.4%) and is still doing quite well, all things considered. But he's definitely looking forward to this Friday's question!
Comments
Question. Would it have been different if the witness, on being asked if he had been driving carefully, answered, "I ALWAYS drive carefully, Mr. Prosecutor. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!"
Michael
2018-05-07 01:27:34 +0000 UTC
