Opinion ID: 1822646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Cross-Examination About Witnesses [L]ying

Text: While cross-examining Lotter at trial, the prosecutor repeatedly asked questions relating to the credibility of various prosecution witnesses. The prosecutor asked Lotter several times whether another witness was lying when he or she testified in a manner that conflicted with Lotter's testimony. Lotter's trial counsel did not object to this line of questioning. On direct appeal, we held that the absence of an objection precluded Lotter from asserting that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony. At the evidentiary hearing in this postconviction proceeding, Lotter's trial counsel explained that he did not object in part because of some ethical considerations as to how far I could go in assisting Mr. Lotter in those responses and also because Lotter was handling the prosecutor's questions well. In its analysis of this issue, the district court found that counsel was deficient for not objecting, as it is improper under Nebraska law for a party to ask a witness to comment on whether another witness is lying or telling the truth. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-608 (Reissue 1995). The court held, however, that Lotter was not prejudiced by this cross-examination. Lotter now argues that [t]he district court was in error in examining the trial record when the question is whether the failure was prejudicial to ... Lotter's appeal. Brief for appellant at 57. As noted above, the prejudice analysis conducted by the district court correctly focused upon whether there was a reasonable probability that the failure of trial counsel to object to these questions affected the outcome of the trial. We agree with its conclusion that it did not.