Formalism Versus Pragmaism in Evidence: Reconsidering the Absolute Ban on the Use of Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Impeaching, Untruthful Acts That Have Not Resulted in a Conviction
Loading...
Authors
Imwinkelried, Edward J.
Issue Date
2015
Volume
48
Issue
2
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
FIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|There are three types of disputes that go to trial. The first is a legal standard case. For example, suppose that the police conduct a reverse sting operation and videotape all their interactions with an alleged drug trafficker. The videotape shows the accused initially agreeing to deliver a quantity of crack cocaine and later conveying the cocaine. However, the accused raises the defense of entrapment. The critical question is not the credibility of the evidence that the accused made the agreement or delivered the cocaine; given the videotape, the accused cannot defend on that basis. Nor is there a question as to the historical inferences to draw from the acts and statements shown on the videotape. That is often the crucial issue when a litigant relies on circumstantial evidence, and the battle is over which inferences to draw from the circumstances. In contrast, in this case the prosecution has direct evidence. In the final analysis in the hypothetical, the outcome turns on how the trier of fact decides to apply the legal definition of entrapment to the undisputed facts shown on the videotape...
Description
Citation
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law