1013

 

I can think of two.

1) Extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible unless the issue is important (and the name of the gym is not). There is lots of judicial discretion.

2) The statement is not actually contradictory -- saying he works out both places and is unsure which one he went to that day is not inconsistent with saying at trial (after they found evidence he scanned into the YMCA) that he is now sure it was the YMCA.  

Questions? Email tanford@indiana.edu, and refer to 1013.

Turn to problem 10B, the impeachment of an alibi witness in the criminal case version of the arson.

Items 1 through 6 pose various ways the witness and defendant could be associated.

If any or all of them were objected to as irrelevant, prejudicial or improper character evidence, how should the prosecutor respond? When you think you know the answers, click here.