I have to say I love what you've done with Neal testifying. I remember FRE 609 as the Neal Caffrey rule, because it's all about using prior convictions to impeach a witness's credibility, and ever since we got to that point in Evidence I've been wanting to write something centered around it. But you've done it so much better than I could.
one tiny note, though, that in ten years opposing counsel likely wouldn't be able to use Neal's forgery conviction against him because it's stale. There's some judicial wiggleroom, but if Neal's truly on the straight and narrow working for the Feds, then it probably wouldn't be admissible.
no subject
I have to say I love what you've done with Neal testifying. I remember FRE 609 as the Neal Caffrey rule, because it's all about using prior convictions to impeach a witness's credibility, and ever since we got to that point in Evidence I've been wanting to write something centered around it. But you've done it so much better than I could.
one tiny note, though, that in ten years opposing counsel likely wouldn't be able to use Neal's forgery conviction against him because it's stale. There's some judicial wiggleroom, but if Neal's truly on the straight and narrow working for the Feds, then it probably wouldn't be admissible.