Also known as: § 609 · 609
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A rule permitting impeachment of a witness by evidence of a prior criminal conviction when the conviction is probative of the witness's character for truthfulness.
A rule permitting impeachment of a witness by evidence of a prior criminal conviction when the conviction is probative of the witness's character for truthfulness.
Simon Stern testifies as a key witness in a contract dispute. Opposing counsel seeks to ask him about a five-year-old conviction for submitting false financial reports. The court allows the limited inquiry because the conviction directly bears on truthfulness and the risk of unfair prejudice remains low.
Sofia Stern contracts to supply equipment in installments. After the buyer receives reports of production problems, the buyer demands written assurance of future performance. The seller responds with a detailed production schedule and contingency plan within thirty days, thereby reinstating its contractual rights.
A provision establishing the elements and procedures for a court to adjudicate an individual as a de facto parent based on the individual's residence with the child and consistent caretaking.
Sophia Singh petitions to be adjudicated a de facto parent of a child with whom she has lived for four years. She presents evidence of consistent daily caretaking and full financial responsibility. The court grants the petition after finding that the statutory factors are satisfied by clear and convincing evidence.
1 common questions
A provision establishing the elements and procedures for a court to adjudicate an individual as a de facto parent based on the individual's residence with the child and consistent caretaking.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Serena Soto testifies for the defense in a civil fraud trial. On cross-examination the plaintiff asks about two prior instances in which Soto submitted false invoices at a former job. The court permits the questions because the acts are probative of truthfulness and no extrinsic evidence is offered.
Solomon Silver testifies in a criminal prosecution. When asked about a prior conviction on cross-examination, he refuses to answer on self-incrimination grounds. The court sustains the objection after determining that the question relates solely to character for truthfulness.
In November 1959, Harold Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in Hartford, Connecticut, on charges related to pool selling. He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor, receiving a sentence of one year in jail and a five-hundred-dollar fine, with the jail term suspended after ninety days followed by two years of probation. Approximately sixteen months later, Malloy was subpoenaed to appear before a referee appointed by the Superior Court of Hartford County to investigate alleged gambling and other criminal activities in the county. During the inquiry, he was questioned about the circumstances of his 1959 arrest and conviction, including the identity of his employer, who paid his fine and bondsman, the tenant of the apartment where he was arrested, and whether he knew a man named John Bergoti. Malloy refused to answer any of these questions, asserting that his responses might tend to incriminate him. The Superior Court adjudged Malloy in contempt and ordered him committed to prison until he answered the questions. The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the contempt adjudication, holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege was unavailable in state proceedings and that Malloy had not properly invoked the state constitutional privilege. Malloy then sought federal habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, which was denied, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional questions presented.
View caseSimone Sanders elects to testify in her criminal trial. The prosecutor seeks to introduce a recent felony conviction for theft by deception. The court admits the conviction after determining that its probative value on credibility outweighs the risk of prejudice to the defendant.
2 common questions
A conviction is admissible if it is probative of truthfulness and meets the time and balancing requirements of the rule. Crimes involving dishonesty are automatically admissible. Felonies that do not involve dishonesty are admissible only after the court weighs probative value against prejudice.
The conviction is inadmissible for impeachment if the vacation rested on a finding of rehabilitation and the witness has no later conviction punishable by more than one year of imprisonment.
The claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence that the individual resided with the child as a regular household member for a significant period, engaged in consistent caretaking, and undertook full and permanent parental responsibilities.
…state court proceedings. There, as in Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n , 378 U. S. 52 (1964), and Griffin v. California , 380 U. S. 609 (1965), we applied the existing Fifth Amendment standards to the case before us. Aside from the holding itself, the reasoning in Malloy made clear what had already become apparent—that…