Also known as:reputation of truthfulness · credibility · veracity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Testimony concerning a witness's general standing in the community for honesty or dishonesty. Such evidence is admissible to attack or support the witness's credibility. Evidence supporting truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Appellate Review of Credibility Finding
Robert Rivera testified at a bench trial that he had no involvement in the disputed transaction. The district court found his testimony not credible and entered judgment against him. On appeal Rivera argues that the finding should be overturned because the trial judge overlooked his strong community reputation for truthfulness. The reviewing court declines to set aside the finding, noting that it must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to assess witness credibility.
Party Attacks Own Witness
Roberto Reyes called Rita Russell as a witness to establish the sequence of events. On direct examination Russell gave testimony helpful to Reyes. During cross-examination the opposing party introduced evidence that Russell had a reputation in the community for untruthfulness. Reyes objects that he may not attack his own witness, but the court permits the inquiry because any party may attack a witness's credibility.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Federal Rules
Model Codes
Restatements
Casebooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Improper Personal Opinion on Credibility
Riley Rivera testifies for the defense. In closing argument defense counsel states that Riley has always been known in the neighborhood as an honest person and that the jury should therefore believe every word. The opposing party objects that counsel has improperly vouched for the witness's credibility. The court sustains the objection because counsel may not state a personal opinion about a witness's credibility.
Impeachment with Suppressed Statement
Ruby Rivera is charged with robbery. After the court suppresses her post-arrest statement for a Miranda violation, she takes the stand and gives an alibi. The prosecutor seeks to introduce the suppressed statement solely to show that her trial testimony is inconsistent. The court admits the statement for impeachment because it may be used to attack the defendant's credibility even though it is inadmissible in the prosecution's case in chief.
Rehabilitation After Character Attack
Rebecca Ross testifies for the plaintiff. On cross-examination the defense introduces testimony that Ross has a reputation for untruthfulness. The plaintiff then calls a neighbor who testifies that Ross enjoys a reputation for truthfulness in the community. The court admits the neighbor's testimony because evidence of truthful character is admissible once the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked.
Informant Tip and Veracity Assessment
An officer obtains a search warrant based on an informant's tip that Regal Apparel is storing stolen goods. The affidavit describes the informant's past tips that proved accurate. After the search yields evidence, the defense moves to suppress, arguing the informant's reputation for truthfulness is weak. The court upholds the warrant because the totality of the circumstances, including the informant's track record, establishes probable cause.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When may a party introduce evidence of a witness's reputation for truthfulness?+
A party may introduce such evidence to attack the witness's credibility at any time. Evidence supporting truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked by the opposing party.
Supporting sources
Does vigorous cross-examination alone open the door to reputation-for-truthfulness evidence?+
No. Vigorous cross-examination that merely highlights inconsistencies between a witness's testimony and other evidence does not constitute an attack on the witness's character for truthfulness. Reputation evidence supporting truthfulness therefore remains inadmissible until a direct attack on character occurs.
Supporting sources
May a criminal defendant introduce reputation evidence without first testifying?+
No. A defendant who does not testify has not placed credibility in issue in a manner that permits reputation-for-truthfulness evidence. Once the defendant testifies, however, the prosecution may attack credibility and the defendant may then offer supporting reputation evidence.
Supporting sources
What form must reputation evidence take under the Federal Rules?+
The witness must testify about the subject's reputation in the community for truthfulness or untruthfulness. The rules do not permit the witness to state a personal opinion about the subject's truthfulness or to describe specific instances of conduct.
Supporting sources
329 U.S. 495 (1949)Evidence
…to support his own version of the witness’s conversation with him, or else he will have to go on the stand to defend his own credibility — perhaps against that of his chief witness, or possibly even his client. Every lawyer dislikes to take the witness stand and will do so only for grave reasons. This is partly because it…