During a civil trial for breach of contract, the defendant calls a witness to testify to their character for honesty. On cross-examination, the plaintiff's attorney asks the witness whether they are aware that the defendant was accused five years ago of forging financial documents. The defense objects to the question. How should the court rule?
The court should allow the question if the plaintiff's attorney can first provide proof of the defendant's alleged conduct.
The court should exclude the question because the conduct occurred long ago and is inadmissible under the rules of evidence.
The court should allow the question because it relates to the credibility of the character witness’s testimony about the defendant's honesty.
The court should exclude the question because using specific instances of conduct to attack honesty is not allowed in civil matters.
The court should allow the question because Rule 608(b) permits inquiry into specific conduct if it challenges the credibility of a character witness by showing knowledge of past dishonest behavior. Here, the question does not offer evidence of the conduct but tests the witness’s basis for their testimony. Misconceptions in the incorrect answers include the idea that proof of the conduct is required, that older conduct is automatically inadmissible, or that civil cases preclude such questioning.
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 Rule 608(b) in relation to witness credibility?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why might the timing of past conduct be relevant in court?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is meant by 'character witness' in a legal context?