Top Law Schools

I know that in a trial you can't ask one witness about the testimony of another witness. What case or rule says that?

Hearsay. seriously?

Aqualibrium wrote:I know that in a trial you can't ask one witness about the testimony of another witness. What case or rule says that?

I don't recall the specific rules; however, it falls outside the scope of a permissible opinion testimony as reliability is reserved for the trier of fact and it falls outside of permissible testimony for attacking the witness. You can ask about their character for truthfulness, but you can't ask for an evaluation of their actual testimony.

FRE 701 is the lay opinion rule.

Aqualibrium wrote:I know that in a trial you can't ask one witness about the testimony of another witness. What case or rule says that?

Generally it can't be commented on because the witness should have been sequestered per 615. If you are asking for a witness to comment on the credibility of another, this would be allowed under 608 if it goes to character for truthfulness. But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.

Yeah, this confirms that I am not understanding anything in Evidence.

traehekat wrote:Yeah, this confirms that I am not understanding anything in Evidence.

Semester's young, broheim. Give yourself time.

bjsesq wrote:But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.

I'm having a hard time imagining how that scenario is going to be anything but a lay opinion. Can you provide an example of a permissible question to the second witness?

Anonymous Loser wrote:

bjsesq wrote:But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.

I'm having a hard time imagining how that scenario is going to be anything but a lay opinion. Can you provide an example of a permissible question to the second witness?

I guess it would be. The scenario I was thinking about was a lay witness who hadn't been sequestered being used to impeach the testimony of another lay witness. Witness X said _____ on the stand, but that isn't what I saw, I saw _________. It's a rationally based perception helpful to a determination of fact at issue and not based on specialized knowledge. It is a commentary on the testimony of another witness. Perhaps I approached the question all wrong.

bjsesq wrote:

Anonymous Loser wrote:

bjsesq wrote:But as far as inability to comment on claims raised by other witnesses-not sure what you talking about. 701 does not necessarily exclude such testimony.

I'm having a hard time imagining how that scenario is going to be anything but a lay opinion. Can you provide an example of a permissible question to the second witness?

I guess it would be. The scenario I was thinking about was a lay witness who hadn't been sequestered being used to impeach the testimony of another lay witness. Witness X said _____ on the stand, but that isn't what I saw, I saw _________. It's a rationally based perception helpful to a determination of fact at issue and not based on specialized knowledge. It is a commentary on the testimony of another witness. Perhaps I approached the question all wrong.

That's not going to be permissible. Each witness could testify as to what they witnessed, but the evaluation of credibility will be left to the finder of fact.