Impeachment Evidence in Civil Cases—the Modern Focus on Truthfulness
| Publication year | 2019 |
| Pages | 36 |
| Citation | Vol. 88 No. 9 Pg. 36 |
IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES— THE MODERN FOCUS ON TRUTHFULNESS
by Pablo Mose
For over a century, the word "impeachment" has had various meanings in legal and political contexts. Most of the time, impeachment involves allegations that "cast doubt"[1] on a person's qualifications, testimony, or character. For example, as early as 1872, Congress initiated impeachment proceedings against Judge Mark Delahay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. [2] Judge Delahay, appointed by President Lincoln himself, ultimately resigned before formal impeachment proceedings after several witnesses (including a future U.S. Senator for the State of Kansas) testified to the congressional panel that the Judge was regularly "intoxicated on the bench." [3]
While formal and political impeachment proceedings are rare, [4] issues relating to impeachment evidence are common. Attempts to "impeach" a witness with evidence relating to credibility, character, and contradictory statements have frequently arisen in both civil and criminal cases since the beginning of the common law. Despite serving as long-standing evidentiary issues, the meaning, scope, and application of state and federal impeachment rules have evolved multiple times.
The modern impeachment rules focus on evidence of credibility or truthfulness. [5] This approach limits the admission of general character evidence, funnels the pool of potential evidence into a core category of truthfulness, and includes additional limitations on the timing and form of admissible impeachment evidence. State and federal courts are largely aligned in applying this impeachment approach in civil cases. Of course, impeachment rules in criminal cases have a few different requirements and unique rules in both state and federal courts. Nevertheless, in civil cases, the modern view is that impeachment evidence is focused on truthfulness.
Of course, impeachment is just one piece of the evidentiary puzzle. Foundation requirements, hearsay rules, relevancy tests, and judicial discretion are often intermixed with a court's decision to admit or exclude impeachment evidence. In fact, sometimes, evidence may be relevant to both a material legal issue and witness credibility, thereby permitting admission of evidence for both substantive and impeachment purposes. [6] There is indeed nothing one-dimensional about an issue involving potential impeachment evidence.
The sections below will provide specific examples of key impeachment issues and rules under the modern approach. Because evidentiary rulings are subject to an abuse of discretion standard on appeal, trial courts can justifiably reach opposite conclusions applying the same rule. Therefore, this article focuses on several of the principles that guide such decisions.
I. TRUTHFULNESS DEFINES THE GENERAL SCOPE OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
Under the current rules, impeachment evidence typically relates to a witness's character for truth or veracity. [7] Evidence about a witness's "general" character and extrinsic proof of prior conduct that do not relate to truthfulness or the merits in a case are frequently inadmissible under the modern impeachment rules.
Whether the same evidence is admissible for a different purpose, such as impeaching a witness with an inconsistent prior statement or proving an element of a claim or defense, is a separate question. This can be a tricky issue to navigate because "evidence of [character] traits...other than honesty or veracity [are] inadmissible," and evidence of specific instances of conduct to "prove a trait of...character" are also inadmissible. [8]
Evidence of a witness's truthfulness or veracity may be admitted through opinion or reputation evidence. [9] The key restrictions apply when a party attempts to prove a witness is a dishonest person based on specific examples of past conduct. [10] It may be true— even admitted— that a witness lied several times during a political debate. [11] But evidence of those lies is likely inadmissible in a negligence lawsuit because dishonest character "may not be proven by specific instances" of a witness's prior conduct. [12]
But there may be evidence of past conduct that disproves testimony of a witness that could be admissible in a negligence action. For example, evidence that a party is an alcoholic who often drives when intoxicated may be excluded as impermissible character evidence for impeachment, as being an alcoholic does not establish dishonesty. However, evidence about a specific lie relating to having an open container in a vehicle while driving was admissible in a negligence case where the Defendant testified that he or she never held a beer can while driving and there was contradictory testimony from an ex-girlfriend that the Defendant had done that exact thing on several previous occasions. [13] In that specific case, the testimony of the ex-girlfriend did involve specific instances of prior conduct, but the evidence was not introduced just to show that the Defendant was an alcoholic; rather, the evidence was used to impeach the Defendant's testimony that he had "never held a beer can in his hand while driving." So, while there are general prohibitions on the admission of evidence to establish a general character trait, other than honesty, or prior bad acts of a witness, the evidence may still be admissible for a different purpose.
II. THE WHO, WHAT, AND WHY OF IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE
The three most important issues for impeachment issues are who, what, and why. All three issues are connected by a general rule, in both Kansas state and federal district courts, "that any party may challenge a witness's credibility." [14] With some exceptions, then, the general rule is that anyone in front of the bar can impeach anyone on the witness stand.
"Why" a party seeks to introduce impeachment evidence must, as a threshold rule, be to impair or support a witness's credibility. [15] Limiting the "why" to character for truthfulness reduces the danger of prejudice by narrowing the scope of admissible impeachment evidence to a singular trait. [16] But, as noted above, evidence may be inadmissible to impeach the general character of a witness yet still admissible for a different purpose. In some situations, a jury may even be instructed to consider evidence for a substantive purpose; but, it is difficult to imagine how substantive evidence showing the party lied to someone about the case events could not also impair the credibility of a witness. [17] The bottom line is that the modern approach limits impeachment evidence to proof a witness's veracity or truthfulness, so long as relevant.
The question of "What" constitutes admissible impeachment evidence remains a central issue in many cases. There are three common situations where the "What" issue commonly arises in modern civil cases: 1) when evidence is admitted for dual purposes of impeachment and a substantive issue; 2) when character is placed at issue or otherwise introduced; and 3) when asking about prior acts versus proving those.
A. Evidence for Both Impeachment and Substantive Purposes—or Just One of the Two Purposes
Some evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial