Also known as: impechiato · impeach
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An archaic verb meaning to accuse or charge with misconduct. The term historically denoted formal accusations against public officials.
A verb meaning to discredit the veracity of a witness or to challenge the accuracy of testimony or a document through contradiction or bias evidence.
An archaic verb meaning to accuse or charge with misconduct. The term historically denoted formal accusations against public officials.
The Attorney General appoints an independent counsel to investigate Theodore Olson. Olson challenges the appointment as violating separation of powers. The Court upholds the statute because it does not impermissibly encroach on executive impeachment authority.
A verb meaning to discredit the veracity of a witness or to challenge the accuracy of testimony or a document through contradiction or bias evidence.
Bridge Design calls curator Melanie to testify about an oral agreement with photographer Brandon. Melanie concedes uncertainty at trial. Bridge Design offers her prior deposition expressing certainty about the agreement. The deposition is admitted to contradict her trial testimony.
Ismael Ibrahim offers to pay Ivan Ivanov $50,000 to settle a contract dispute. Ivanov rejects the offer. At trial Ivanov seeks to introduce the offer to show Ibrahim's inconsistent position on damages. The court excludes the evidence because it was made during compromise negotiations.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseCongress creates the Sentencing Commission with members appointed by the President. Mistretta challenges the delegation as unconstitutional. The Court upholds the structure because it does not improperly transfer impeachment-related powers away from the political branches.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act to address widespread criticisms that federal sentencing was a national scandal marked by unwarranted disparities and uncertainty. The legislation created the United States Sentencing Commission as an independent commission in the judicial branch consisting of seven voting members. The President appoints the members with the advice and consent of the Senate, and at least three members must be federal judges selected after consideration of recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, while the Attorney General serves as an ex officio nonvoting member. Petitioner John M. Mistretta was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on three counts centering on a cocaine sale. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced him under the Guidelines to 18 months' imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release, along with a $1,000 fine and a $50 assessment. Mistretta appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the Sentencing Commission and the Guidelines. Both Mistretta and the United States petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari before judgment in the Eighth Circuit. The Court granted the petitions because of the imperative public importance of the issue and the disarray among the federal district courts.
View caseThe Senate appoints a committee to take evidence in the impeachment trial of a federal judge. The judge challenges the procedure as violating the constitutional requirement of a Senate trial. The Court holds the procedure permissible because the Senate retains final authority over the impeachment process.
Walter L. Nixon, Jr., served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. A federal grand jury investigated reports that Nixon had accepted a gratuity from a Mississippi businessman in exchange for influencing a local prosecution. Nixon was convicted by a jury of two counts of making false statements before the grand jury and sentenced to prison. He refused to resign his judicial office and continued to receive his salary during his incarceration. On May 10, 1989, the House of Representatives adopted three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The first two articles charged him with giving false testimony before the grand jury, and the third charged him with bringing disrepute on the Federal Judiciary. The Senate then invoked its Impeachment Rule XI, which permits a committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony and report to the full Senate. The committee held four days of hearings at which ten witnesses, including Nixon, testified. It submitted a complete transcript and a report summarizing the evidence to the full Senate. Nixon and the House managers submitted briefs and presented oral arguments to the Senate. The Senate convicted Nixon on the first two articles by the required two-thirds majority and removed him from office. Nixon filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that his conviction was void and that his salary and privileges should be reinstated. The district court dismissed the action as nonjusticiable. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View case1 common questions
Yes. The Senate may use committees to gather evidence during impeachment trials. The full Senate retains authority to render the final judgment, satisfying the constitutional requirement of a Senate trial.
Iris Irons testifies for Ideal Solutions in a contract suit. India Inoue seeks to cross-examine her about membership in a group whose tenets require members to favor fellow members in disputes. The court permits the inquiry because evidence of bias is always relevant to impeach a witness.
4 common questions
Yes. Any party may attack the credibility of any witness it called. A party may introduce a contradictory deposition or other evidence to show inconsistency without first showing surprise or hostility.
A conviction punishable by more than one year is admissible if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by prejudice in civil cases. Convictions involving dishonesty are admissible without balancing. Older convictions face stricter notice and balancing requirements.
No. Evidence of religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack credibility. Bias arising from organizational membership may be shown even if the organization's tenets are expressed in religious language, provided the inquiry focuses on the bias rather than the beliefs themselves.
Reasonable written notice of intent to use the conviction must be given so the adverse party has a fair opportunity to contest its use. Mere disclosure of the conviction's existence without signaling its intended use for impeachment is insufficient.
…never be used by the prosecution. In fact, statements merely intended to be exculpatory by the defendant are often used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate untruths in the statement given under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. These statements are incriminating in any meaningful…