United States v. Clinton Webster

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the prosecution “abuses” Rule 607 when it calls a witness that it “knew would not give useful evidence” against the defendant for the purpose of putting before the jury hearsay evidence incriminating the defendant
• noting that although Morlang is a prerules case, its limitation on the prosecutor’s rights under Rule 607 “has been accepted in all circuits that have considered the issue”
• finding that because prosecutor had no idea what witness would say in advance and judge refused to allow her to examine the witness outside the presence of the jury, the court could not hold that impeachment was mere subterfuge
• allowing the government to engage is such a practice would be \an abuse of the rule\
• where there is no bad faith on the prosecutor's part, the prosecutor may use a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the witness
• court denied use of prior inconsistent statement to impeach witness when the sole purpose for calling a witness was to impeach his testimony by applying Rule 607 of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).