1007

 

I would say: "The evidence tends to prove that he has a personal interest in the outcome of this case, and is therefore relevant to impeach Matthew’s credibility by suggesting that he has a motive to lie about the arson."

Of course, he already had a motive to lie about it -- he’s a defendant who might have to pay damages, but (since he might figure he just won’t ever pay the damages) this gives another motive, and the more, the merrier.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu, and refer to 1007.

Question 5 asks him about a felony drug conviction. If you were going to object, would you do so under Rule 403 or Rule 609?  Think about it and then go on to the next screen.