On cross-examination, may a party ask about a witness's prior arrests to impeach honesty if the acts were not proven crimes?

On cross-examination, may a party ask about a witness's prior arrests to impeach honesty if the acts were not proven crimes?

• A. Yes, always
• B. No, never
• C. Yes, if the act is probative of untruthfulness and there is a good faith basis
• D. Yes, if a conviction exists

Answer: (C)

On cross-examination, you can bring up specific acts to attack a witness’s credibility, but only when those acts are probative of untruthfulness and you have a good-faith basis to believe the act occurred. This is the rule about specific conduct under the credibility-impeachment framework: the act must bear on honesty, and you must have a reasonable basis to think the act happened, otherwise the line of questioning should not be pursued and extrinsic proof is not allowed. So asking about prior arrests to impeach honesty is permissible only if the arrest reflects dishonesty or deceit and you have a reasonable basis to believe the arrest occurred. An arrest alone that did not involve a proven dishonest act may not be probative enough to impeach, and you must limit the inquiry to what is probative and grounded in fact. If there were a conviction, impeachment would proceed under a different rule, but the scenario specifies acts that were not proven crimes, so the applicable standard is the good-faith, probative specific-acts approach.

On cross-examination, you can bring up specific acts to attack a witness’s credibility, but only when those acts are probative of untruthfulness and you have a good-faith basis to believe the act occurred. This is the rule about specific conduct under the credibility-impeachment framework: the act must bear on honesty, and you must have a reasonable basis to think the act happened, otherwise the line of questioning should not be pursued and extrinsic proof is not allowed.

So asking about prior arrests to impeach honesty is permissible only if the arrest reflects dishonesty or deceit and you have a reasonable basis to believe the arrest occurred. An arrest alone that did not involve a proven dishonest act may not be probative enough to impeach, and you must limit the inquiry to what is probative and grounded in fact. If there were a conviction, impeachment would proceed under a different rule, but the scenario specifies acts that were not proven crimes, so the applicable standard is the good-faith, probative specific-acts approach.