Witnesses...
Federal Rules of Evidence: Witnesses
ARTICLE VI. WITNESSES
Rule 601. General Rule of Competency
Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise
provided in these rules. However, in civil actions and proceedings,
with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State
law supplies the rule of decision, the competency of a witness
shall be determined in accordance with State law.
Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced
sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal
knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge
may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony. This
rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony
by expert witnesses.
Rule 603. Oath or Affirmation
Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that
the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered
in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and
impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.
Rule 604. Interpreters
An interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating
to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or
affirmation to make a true translation.
Rule 605. Competency of Judge as Witness
The judge presiding at the trial may not testify in that trial as
a witness. No objection need be made in order to preserve the
point.
Rule 606. Competency of Juror as Witness
(a) At the trial.—A member of the jury may not testify as a witness
before that jury in the trial of the case in which the juror is
sitting. If the juror is called so to testify, the opposing party shall
be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the
jury.
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment.—Upon an inquiry
into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not
testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course
of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that
or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to
assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning
the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith, except that
a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial
information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention
or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear
upon any juror. Nor may a juror’s affidavit or evidence of any
statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror
would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.
Rule 607. Who May Impeach
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including
the party calling the witness.
Rule 608. Evidence of Character and Conduct of Witness
(a) Opinion and reputation evidence of character.—The credibility
of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the
form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1)
the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness,
and (2) evidence of truthful character is admissible
only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been
attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.
(b) Specific instances of conduct.—Specific instances of the conduct
of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the
witness’ character for truthfulness, other than conviction of crime
as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.
They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of
truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination
of the witness (1) concerning the witness’ character for truthfulness
or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for
truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which
character the witness being cross-examined has testified.
The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other
witness, does not operate as a waiver of the accused’s or the witness’
privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect
to matters that relate only to character for truthfulness.
Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
(a) General rule.—For the purpose of attacking the credibility of
a witness,
(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been
convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if
the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess
of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted,
and evidence that an accused has been convicted of
such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that
the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its
prejudicial effect to the accused; and
(2) evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime
shall be admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement,
regardless of the punishment.
(b) Time limit.—Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not
admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the
date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the
confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later
date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that
the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts
and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect.
However, evidence of a conviction more than 10 years old as calculated
herein, is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the
adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use
such evidence to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity
to contest the use of such evidence.
(c) Effect of pardon, annulment, or certificate of rehabilitation.—
Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule
if (1) the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment,
certificate of rehabilitation, or other equivalent procedure based
on a finding of the rehabilitation of the person convicted, and that
person has not been convicted of a subsequent crime which was
punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year, or (2)
the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or
other equivalent procedure based on a finding of innocence.
(d) Juvenile adjudications.—Evidence of juvenile adjudications
is generally not admissible under this rule. The court may, however,
in a criminal case allow evidence of a juvenile adjudication
of a witness other than the accused if conviction of the offense
would be admissible to attack the credibility of an adult and the
court is satisfied that admission in evidence is necessary for a fair
determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.
(e) Pendency of appeal.—The pendency of an appeal therefrom
does not render evidence of a conviction inadmissible. Evidence of
the pendency of an appeal is admissible.
Rule 610. Religious Beliefs or Opinions
Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion
is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason
of their nature the witness’ credibility is impaired or enhanced.
Rule 611. Mode and Order of Interrogation and Presentation
(a) Control by court.—The court shall exercise reasonable control
over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting
evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation
effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless
consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment
or undue embarrassment.
(b) Scope of cross-examination.—Cross-examination should be
limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters
affecting the credibility of the witness. The court may, in the
exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if
on direct examination.
(c) Leading questions.—Leading questions should not be used on
the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to
develop the witness’ testimony. Ordinarily leading questions
should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a
hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an
adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.
Rule 612. Writing Used To Refresh Memory
Except as otherwise provided in criminal proceedings by section
3500 of title 18, United States Code, if a witness uses a writing to
refresh memory for the purpose of testifying, either—
(1) while testifying, or
(2) before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines
it is necessary in the interests of justice,
an adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the
hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and
to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony
of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains
matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony the
court shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions
not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party
entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be
preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event
of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to
order under this rule, the court shall make any order justice requires,
except that in criminal cases when the prosecution elects
not to comply, the order shall be one striking the testimony or,
if the court in its discretion determines that the interests of justice
so require, declaring a mistrial.
Rule 613. Prior Statements of Witnesses
(a) Examining witness concerning prior statement.—In examining
a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness,
whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its
contents disclosed to the witness at that time, but on request the
same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
(b) Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness.—
Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a
witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity
to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded
an opportunity to interrogate the witness thereon, or the
interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not
apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in rule
801(d)(2).
Rule 614. Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court
(a) Calling by court.—The court may, on its own motion or at
the suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled
to cross-examine witnesses thus called.
(b) Interrogation by court.—The court may interrogate witnesses,
whether called by itself or by a party.
(c) Objections.—Objections to the calling of witnesses by the
court or to interrogation by it may be made at the time or at the
next available opportunity when the jury is not present.
Rule 615. Exclusion of Witnesses
At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded
so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses,
and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not
authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2)
an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person
designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person
whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation
of the party’s cause, or (4) a person authorized by statute
to be present.

Personal Injury Attorney
Do you need the services of a competent personal injury attorney in Orange County, California? The personal injury lawyer in our Orange County office has experience with civil tort actions including personal injury law. If you have been injured or civilly wronged by someone and have sustained damages as a result you should consult an attorney in order to make sure that your legal rights are protected. The lawyer in our office would be happy to assist you with your civil legal problem such as a personal injury action. If you require the services of an experienced attorney, please feel free to contact a personal injury lawyer in our Orange County office for a consultation regarding your legal issue.
Our office services greater Orange County in communities such as Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Irvine, Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach and Long Beach.
Contact us for more info
|