1009

I would say: "The evidence is relevant to impeach Matthew’s credibility under Rule 609(a)(1), which makes prior felony convictions within 10 years presumptively admissible."

Note that the rule of specificity requires that you identify whether the evidence is admissible under 609(a)(1) for felonies, or 609(a)(2) for crimes (including misdemeanors) that involved dishonesty and false statement.

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu, and refer to 1009.

The 6th question asks him if he lied on his job application. Assuming that the defense objects that the evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial under Rule 403, what response could the plaintiff's attorney make? When you think you know the answer, click here.