Also known as: character for truthfulness · character for untruthfulness · credibility character evidence · Rule 608 character
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary allowance for proving a witness's honesty or dishonesty to evaluate credibility through reputation or opinion testimony or limited inquiry on cross-examination.
Cameron Cruz testifies about contract terms in a commercial dispute. On cross-examination counsel asks whether Cruz previously falsified invoices in another matter. Cruz invokes the Fifth Amendment. The court sustains the objection and bars any further inquiry because the question touches only character for truthfulness.
Chloe Chen testifies for the defense in a fraud trial. The prosecution first elicits testimony that Chen has a reputation among colleagues for dishonesty. The defense then calls a coworker who offers an opinion that Chen is truthful. The court admits the opinion because the character for truthfulness was already attacked.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cecilia Cabrera testifies about safety inspections at a construction site. Counsel seeks to introduce a prior performance review accusing her of falsifying reports. The court permits questions on cross-examination about the review but excludes the document itself as extrinsic evidence of specific conduct.
Christian Coleman testifies in a civil fraud case. The opposing party offers evidence of Coleman's general reputation for violence. The court excludes the evidence because only reputation for truthfulness or untruthfulness is admissible to attack credibility.
Corinne Cho testifies for the prosecution. Defense counsel asks on cross whether Cho previously submitted false expense reports in her own prior testimony. The court admits the inquiry because the specific instance is probative of Cho's character for truthfulness.
Camila Cervantes testifies about events she claims to recall clearly. After an attack on her honesty, the defense calls a coworker who gives an opinion that Cervantes is truthful. The court admits the opinion testimony because it directly addresses character for truthfulness.
Reputation evidence is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked. The evidence must concern the specific trait of truthfulness rather than general character.
Supporting sources
Extrinsic evidence of specific instances is inadmissible except for criminal convictions under Rule 609. Counsel may inquire about such instances on cross-examination if they are probative of truthfulness.
Supporting sources
Testifying on another matter does not waive the privilege when the questions relate only to character for truthfulness. The court must sustain an objection asserting the Fifth Amendment in that circumstance.
Supporting sources
…him about specific instances of past conduct, other than crimes covered by Rule 609, which are probative of his veracity or “character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.”[^maj-4] The Rule limits the inquiry to cross-examination of the witness, however, and prohibits the cross-examiner from introducing extrinsic evidence of the witness’ past…