when it counsel from cross-examining a key witness concerning a lie precluded plaintiff’s on his resume. at 145 n.2. The court noted that the trial ruling was reviewed Id. court’s under an abuse of discretion standard with to the trial court. The “substantial deference” court stated that trial court was within its discretion to conclude that Stevens' lying “the on his resume, although duplicitous and wrong, was not so indicative of moral turpitude as to be particularly probative of his character for This result is Id. untruthfulness.” criticized in Graham who states that exercise of discretion should very rarely if ever “the be exercised to exclude an undisputed act of such as that in Graham § Johnson. ‘lying’” 608.4 n.5. The inquiry under Rule 608(b) should focus on the actual acts that suggested untruthfulness and not any third party action, such as suspension from a job, that resulted from those acts. 183 F.3d 231, 257 n.12 (3d Cir. 1999). The See United States v. Davis, court may preclude inquiry concerning prior acts if they are remote in time. See Johnson 283 F.3d 138, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 2002). v. Elk Lake School District, In addition, cross-examination under Rule 608(b) may be limited by the Fifth Amendment. Rule 608(b) provides that no witness, including the accused, waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters that relate only to character for truthfulness. The Third Circuit appears not to have addressed this aspect of the rule.
when it precluded plaintiff’s counsel from cross-examining a key witness concerning a lie on his resume. Id. at 145 n.2. The court noted that the trial court’s ruling was reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with “substantial deference” to the trial court. The court stated that “the trial court was within its discretion to conclude that Stevens' lying on his resume, although duplicitous and wrong, was not so indicative of moral turpitude as to be particularly probative of his character for untruthfulness.” Id. This result is criticized in Graham who states that “the exercise of discretion should very rarely if ever be exercised to exclude an undisputed act of ‘lying’” such as that in Johnson. Graham § 608.4 n.5. The inquiry under Rule 608(b) should focus on the actual acts that suggested untruthfulness and not any third party action, such as suspension from a job, that resulted from those acts. See United States v. Davis, 183 F.3d 231, 257 n.12 (3d Cir. 1999). The court may preclude inquiry concerning prior acts if they are remote in time. See Johnson v. Elk Lake School District, 283 F.3d 138, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 2002). In addition, cross-examination under Rule 608(b) may be limited by the Fifth Amendment. Rule 608(b) provides that no witness, including the accused, waives the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters that relate only to character for truthfulness. The Third Circuit appears not to have addressed this aspect of the rule.
2016%20Chapter%202%20revisions.docx