1010

 

I would say: "The evidence is relevant to impeach his credibility under Rule 608(b), as a specific prior act of dishonesty."

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu, and refer to 1010.

Question 7 asks about a conviction for invasion of privacy for violating a protective order. If the plaintiff argues that this is an admissible conviction under Rule 609, what counter-argument can the defense make?  When you think you know the answer, click here.