What may be shown to impeach a witness when their testimony conflicts with other facts (specific contradiction)?

What may be shown to impeach a witness when their testimony conflicts with other facts (specific contradiction)?

• A. A general reputation for truthfulness is the only impeachment method.
• B. Extrinsic evidence cannot be used for impeachment in any case.
• C. Impeachment by asking leading questions only.
• D. Facts contradicting a witness's testimony may be shown for impeachment.

Answer: (D)

Impeachment by specific contradiction works by showing that what the witness just said clashes with other facts already established in the case. This targets credibility on the exact point at issue: if their testimony describes something as true, but there is other reliable evidence indicating the opposite, that inconsistency makes the witness appear less trustworthy regarding that matter. The strength here is direct, concrete comparison to the record, which helps the fact-finder judge whether the witness is accurately describing events. This approach is distinct from using a general reputation for truthfulness, which is a broader character-based method of impeachment. It’s also not limited to a particular tactic like only asking leading questions; cross-examination and, where permitted, presenting other evidence that contradicts the testimony are common ways to establish the specific contradiction. The essence is that showing the actual conflict between the witness’s statement and proven facts undermines their credibility on that point.

Impeachment by specific contradiction works by showing that what the witness just said clashes with other facts already established in the case. This targets credibility on the exact point at issue: if their testimony describes something as true, but there is other reliable evidence indicating the opposite, that inconsistency makes the witness appear less trustworthy regarding that matter. The strength here is direct, concrete comparison to the record, which helps the fact-finder judge whether the witness is accurately describing events.

This approach is distinct from using a general reputation for truthfulness, which is a broader character-based method of impeachment. It’s also not limited to a particular tactic like only asking leading questions; cross-examination and, where permitted, presenting other evidence that contradicts the testimony are common ways to establish the specific contradiction. The essence is that showing the actual conflict between the witness’s statement and proven facts undermines their credibility on that point.