Also known as: bad character for truth · bad character for veracity · bad character for truthfulness · character for truthfulness · witness character impeachment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Evidence offered to undermine a witness's credibility by showing the witness has a reputation for untruthfulness or has engaged in conduct probative of dishonesty. Reputation or opinion testimony may be introduced once the witness's character for truthfulness is attacked. Specific instances of conduct may be inquired into on cross-examination but may not be proved by extrinsic evidence except for criminal convictions.
Belinda Baxter testified on direct about her observations at the scene. On cross-examination opposing counsel asked whether she had once falsified an insurance claim. Baxter asserted the Fifth Amendment. The court sustained the objection because the inquiry related solely to character for truthfulness.
Bei Bai testified for the defense. The plaintiff first introduced evidence that Bai had a reputation for lying about business dealings. The defense then called a coworker who testified that Bai enjoyed a good reputation for honesty among colleagues.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Brian Bailey testified that he had properly maintained the equipment. On cross-examination counsel asked whether Bailey had once altered maintenance logs to conceal defects. The court permitted the question but barred any extrinsic proof of the incident.
Benito Benitez testified that he accurately recorded all transactions. Defense counsel sought to introduce evidence that Benitez had previously submitted false invoices in another job. The court allowed limited cross-examination on the invoices but excluded any documents proving the conduct.
Brianna Burke testified for the prosecution. Defense counsel asked whether Burke belonged to an organization whose members pledged to protect one another by false testimony. The court permitted the questions to explore possible motive affecting truthfulness.
Beatrice Brown testified about the terms of a contract. Opposing counsel asked on cross-examination whether Brown had a prior felony conviction for fraud. The court allowed the inquiry because the conviction bore directly on character for truthfulness.
Reputation or opinion testimony is admissible once the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked. The evidence must concern the witness's reputation for truthfulness or untruthfulness.
Supporting sources
No. Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to prove specific instances of conduct offered to attack character for truthfulness. The only exception is a criminal conviction under Rule 609.
Supporting sources
No. A witness who testifies on another matter does not waive the privilege for testimony that relates only to character for truthfulness.
Supporting sources
Bias evidence shows a witness has a motive to favor one side and is always relevant. Bad-character evidence shows general dishonesty and is subject to the limits of Rule 608.
Supporting sources
…him about specific instances of past conduct, other than crimes covered by Rule 609, which are probative of his veracity or “character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”[^maj-4] The Rule limits the inquiry to cross-examination of the witness, however, and prohibits the cross-examiner from introducing extrinsic evidence of the witness’…