During a trial, the prosecution presents a witness who testified in a prior deposition that they saw the defendant at the scene of the crime. At trial, the defense cross-examines the same witness, revealing that the witness previously admitted being confused about the date of the incident. What action by the defense most effectively contradicts the witness's prior testimony?
Introducing evidence of the witness's confusion about the date to challenge their reliability.
Presenting character evidence to show that the witness is not truthful.
Demonstrating that the witness has a motive to lie about the defendant's presence.
Requesting that the witness be excluded from testifying at trial.
Introducing evidence of the witness's confusion about the date directly challenges the reliability of their earlier statement, effectively contradicting their prior testimony. The other options involve alternative impeachment strategies but do not directly contradict the prior statement.
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 does it mean to impeach a witness?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is a deposition in a legal context?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is consistency important in witness testimonies?