IMPEACHING WITNESS UNDER THE MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE
The Knowledge of the Military Rules of Evidence is critical for any attorney practicing in a court-martial. The impeachment of government witnesses, of course, is always going to be an important part of any trial strategy.
The military rules generally permit impeachment through the following techniques:
- Specific acts
- Character evidence
- Contradiction of testimony
- Prior inconsistent statements
- Prior convictions
- Proof of bias
- Attacks on competency
Evidence of specific acts relevant to a witness's credibility is governed by Military Rule of Evidence 608 (b). That rule permits counsel to ask questions about specific acts of the witness that goes to their credibility or character for truthfulness. Extrinsic evidence of those acts is not permitted under this rule.
Even though 608 (b) does not permit extrinsic evidence, there may be other rules that permit the introduction of the evidence. For instance, if the witness makes a sweeping denial of wrongdoing - the door may be open to extrinsic evidence. United States v. Garcia, 25 M.J. 652 (A.F.C.M.R. 1987).
One of the most powerful rules is 608 (c). This rule does permit extrinsic evidence to show bias.
Extrinsic evidence could also be admissible under 404(b) to show things like motive or plan.
Under rules 404 (a) and 608 (a), counsel can also introduce evidence of a witness's character or reputation for being untruthful.
One of the least well-known military impeachment techniques is impeachment by contradiction. Members of the firm have even encountered judges that were unfamiliar with impeachment by contradiction. This is one of the reasons that civilian counsel can be valuable. Military criminal law practitioners on active duty come from a wide range of backgrounds. They may not always have extensive experience in criminal law.
The rules of evidence do not specifically discuss impeachment by contradiction. It is a creation of appellate case law. A simple example might include testimony from a witness that she was drunk. Defense counsel may want to present evidence from other sources that she was not drunk - contradicting her testimony.
The application of the rule can become more complicated when dealing with hearsay objections. The point, however, is that it's one more tool in defense counsel's arsenal.
Sworn statements subject to cross-examination can sometimes be introduced into evidence. In other words, a copy of the statement can be provided to the jury. Because they are subject to cross-examination, the statements are not hearsay under Military Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(1)(A).
Military Rule of Evidence 609 permits proof of convictions involving dishonesty.
Why Hire Daniel Conway & Associates?
Frequent Coverage on High-Profile Media Networks
Practicing Worldwide With Years of Combined Legal Experience
Fast Responses & Free Initial Consultations Available 24 Hours
Court-Martial Experience in Every Service & Every Crime
Daniel Conway Partner
For the better part of the last decade, Mr. Conway has become a nationally recognized resource on military justice. Daniel Conway is a former Marine staff sergeant and captain. He is a proud graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio and University of New Hampshire School of Law. Mr. Conway is recently a former President of the New Hampshire Bar Association Military Law Section and a current member of the DC Bar. Mr. Conway has also written a book on Military Crimes and Defenses that is near publication with a major ...Read More
Gary Myers Partner
Gary Myers is a former JAG officer and one of the most experienced civilian military defense counsel in the country. He attended the University of Delaware where he received his undergraduate degree in chemical engineering in 1965. Gary Myers served as president of his freshman, sophomore and junior classes and went on in his senior year to be president of the student body. Gary Myers then attended the Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law, and graduated in 1968. Gary Myers paid his way through law school by ...Read More
Brian Pristera Attorney
A Richmond, Virginia native, Mr. Pristera graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering. After spending some time as a DuPont engineer, specifically working on Kevlar manufacturing and ballistics applications, Mr. Pristera attended law school at the University of New Hampshire. On July 4, 2010, Mr. Pristera was commissioned in the U.S. Army in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. Mr. Pristera spent almost six years on active duty. He spent just over three of those years in criminal defense, ...Read More
Joseph Galli Attorney
Originally from Portland, Maine, Mr. Galli attended Elmira College in New York on a four-year Army ROTC Scholarship. At Elmira, he double majored in Business Administration and Public Affairs. Mr. Galli graduated from Elmira College in 2009 with a Bachelor of Science degree and was Commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army. Mr. Galli began his study of the law in 2009 at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. There, he focused on litigation and honed his advocacy skills as a member of the Advanced Trial ...Read More
“Amy did a fanatic job. I should have gotten her involved sooner”- Client
“Appeal through BCNR”- Mitchell
“Things I look for in a lawyer, which Mr. Dan has better than all I've encountered for the DOD: 1) Intelligence/asks many questions 2) Conversational and not nerdy (better connection with command or jury) 3) Meticulousness 4) Voice and Speech / Gravitas. 5)”- John
Contact Daniel Conway & Associates
Request a Free Initial Consultation