What is witness impeachment

We are also going to give an example of how a witness can be successfully impeached using the herein annexed question. Impeachment is the action of calling into question the integrity or validity of something.

Under common law, impeachment is the process of introducing circumstantial evidence to suggest a likelihood that a witness does not understand the need to tell the truth, is lying, the testimony is incomplete or the witness is mistaken. So as to accord a fair trial, one is entitled to cross examine witness of either party during trial.

It explains who can impeach a witness, when, why and the process to be followed for an effective impeachment exercise. Any party may impeach the credibility of a witness by giving evidence to suggest that the witness direct testimony is unworthy of belief. Courts have been of the opinion that the laid down procedure should be followed when impeaching a witness. In Edusei Asili Malema v Republic[4] The appellant in his appeal raised the issue that the learned Judge erred in law in allowing two of the witnesses to be treated as hostile witnesses without following the proper procedure.

Regarding the procedure for declaring a witness to be hostile, the court noted that section 1 of the Evidence Act which gives the court discretion to permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross- examination by the adverse party and section 1 c which categorizes the evidence which may be called by an adverse party or with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him for impeachment of his credit are relevant.

In this case, the record showed that Faith, a sister of the deceased gave evidence which contradicted the prosecution case. Before she completed her evidence Mr. Onderi, the learned counsel merely informed the trial Judge that the witness had completely deviated from what is recorded in the police statement and that he did not wish to subject her to cross examination since she was a child. The Appellate court held that when the evidence of the two witnesses and the appellant is considered in the light of the circumstances surrounding the case, they inescapably conclude that the prosecution case was eminently credible and the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted for disbelieving the defence case.

Before impeaching a witness, one must know why they are doing it. When a witness is cross-examined he may, in addition to the questions asked during cross- examination be asked any other questions which tend It was reiterated in the case of Shiguye Versus Republic EA [6]that the effect of declaring a witness as a hostile witness is to render his entire evidence untrustworthy.

In cross-examination a witness may be asked questions tending for example to expose the errors, contradictions, omission ns and improbabilities. One will seek to challenge their evidence as inconsistent, imporable or unrealistic, or you will challenge the witness as either being mistaken or untruthful.

Before impeaching a witness, the trial advocate must be in a position to prove what they allege should the judge call upon you to do so. Section of the Evidence Act goes ahead to give ways through which the credibility of a witness may be impeached by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him Impeachment of a witness is done during cross examination and one way of impeaching is through the use of prior inconsistent statements.

These are representations made in the course of giving evidence that is inconsistent with the evidence given by the witness at trial. They may be oral, written or inferred from conduct. Section of the Evidence Act states that a witness may also be cross examined on a document he produced as evidence or on a previous written statement.

However if the intention is to bring out a contradiction between what he said under oath and what is contained in the written statement, the same must be shown to the witness. There are three steps in impeachment of a witness on prior inconsistent statements: confirm, credit, confront[12].

Under common law, a witness may be impeached by proving that the witness has contradicted themselves through evidence of prior acts or statements that are inconsistent with testimony given on direct examination. The first step is confirming the witness to their evidence in chief. This is done through two methods[13].

The examiner should use short leading questions so as to retain control over the witness. After confirming, the examiner asks authenticating questions to ensure that the statement was indeed made by the witness. At this stage, one seeks to establish the reliability of the document one is about to use to impeach the witness. For exact numbering of footnotes, refer to full documents.

The CLD is a living tool and its content is being regularly updated. Please help us improve the service by using our feedback form. Browse the list of legal notion titles using the A-Z index. Click on the notion to show the page containing relevant case law extracts. The Appeals Chamber considers that notwithstanding the exact form the impeachment procedure takes, the Trial Chamber must be the one to determine whether to allow the calling party to cross-examine its witness.

It must also be the one to limit the scope of the questioning, if and to the extent it considers appropriate, within its discretion. This may or may not be done on the basis of a prior determination of hostility.

It further considers that the Trial Chamber committed a discernible error in deciding to leave the scope of the challenge to the discretion of the impeaching party.

It may be that the Trial Chamber will decide to allow a calling party to put a prior inconsistent statement to its witness in order to clarify a particular contradiction without declaring the witness hostile. The interests of justice dictate a certain measure of flexibility.

However, this again will be a matter for the Trial Chamber to determine in the circumstances before it. Prosecutor v. Fatmir Limaj et al. Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom all have nearly identical statutory provisions to this effect. Experienced and Compassionate Criminal Defense Attorney Serving the Accused in Colorado When there is an opposing witness testifying, litigants have the right to challenge the truthfulness of that witness.

Prior Inconsistent Statements Introducing contradictory statements made by a witness in the past is one common way to impeach the witness. Personal Interest or Clear Bias Another way to have a witness impeached is by showing that they are biased against one side or another. Character or Reputation Evidence Another standard technique for impeaching a witness is attacking their reputation or character.

Criminal Convictions Past criminal convictions and proof that there is an apparent disrespect for the law can be used to impeach a witness, or at least make their statements less believable. Leave the Defense Strategies to the Attorneys — Hire a Colorado Defense Attorney Today If you have been arrested for a crime, do not worry about witnesses or your strategy. Free Legal Consultation. Phone Number. Describe your legal issue. DUI Defense Resources. Practice Areas. Client Reviews.

Christian A. The information on this website is for general information purposes only.