Also known as: impeachments of · impeached of · impeachment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
The constitutional mechanism by which the House of Representatives charges and the Senate tries and removes the President, Vice President, and other civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The process is textually committed to Congress and produces only removal and disqualification from office, leaving the officer subject to separate criminal prosecution.
The constitutional mechanism by which the House of Representatives charges and the Senate tries and removes the President, Vice President, and other civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The process is textually committed to Congress and produces only removal and disqualification from office, leaving the officer subject to separate criminal prosecution.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The process of attacking a witness's credibility through prior inconsistent statements, bias, character evidence, or other permissible means. Materials offered solely for this purpose are exempt from initial disclosure requirements and certain exclusionary rules.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The process of attacking a witness's credibility through prior inconsistent statements, bias, character evidence, or other permissible means. Materials offered solely for this purpose are exempt from initial disclosure requirements and certain exclusionary rules.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
After the House impeaches President Isaiah Ishikawa for bribery, the Senate convicts and removes him. The former president later seeks a pardon for the underlying offenses. The pardon is unavailable because Article II expressly excepts impeachment cases from the President's clemency power.
The Senate tries Imran Iyer, a federal judge, for misconduct by delegating evidence-taking to a committee. Iyer sues in federal court claiming the procedure violates due process. The court dismisses the suit because the Senate's impeachment-trial procedures present a nonjusticiable political question.
Iris Irons, a state official, is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. She demands a jury trial in federal court on the same charges. The court denies the demand because Article III expressly excepts impeachment cases from the jury-trial guarantee.
No. Conviction on impeachment results only in removal and disqualification from office. The officer remains subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment under the criminal law.
Supporting sources
No. The Constitution commits the sole power to try all impeachments to the Senate, rendering questions about its trial procedures nonjusticiable political questions.
Supporting sources
Infinity Bank sues Ironclad Industries for breach. In its initial disclosures Ironclad lists only its general counsel. It later seeks to call two project managers to support its defense. The court excludes the managers because they were not identified by name and subject matter at the initial-disclosure stage and their testimony is not offered solely for impeachment.
Ingrid Innes sues Innovate Pharmaceuticals after a drug causes injury. After the incident the company adds a warning label. At trial Innes offers the label change to prove negligence. The court excludes the evidence for that purpose but admits it to impeach the company's expert who testified that no additional warning was needed.
Insight Consulting sues Ivy Ibarra for trade-secret misappropriation. In its initial disclosures Insight withholds internal emails that it plans to use only to impeach Ibarra's anticipated testimony. The court holds that the emails need not be disclosed at the initial stage because their sole intended use is impeachment.
No. Both the witness-identification and document-disclosure provisions of Rule 26(a)(1) expressly exempt materials whose use would be solely for impeachment.
Supporting sources
They may be admitted when offered for impeachment or, if disputed, to prove ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures.
Supporting sources
…and a showing the declarations were in furtherance of the conspiracy. Recorded conversations may additionally be admissible for impeachment of witnesses who testify. Given the potential evidentiary uses of the material and the time required for analysis and transcription, the District Court did not err in authorizing the subpoena…