Opinion ID: 340675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prosecutor's Cross-Examination of Defense Witness

Text: 39 Appellant Siegal objects that the prosecution improperly attacked Siegal's character by eliciting from a defense witness that he had once represented Siegal. But neither the question nor the witness' response that he had represented Siegal (o)ne time that stands out in my mind and also possibly in traffic court in any way suggests representation in a criminal manner or prior criminal activity. Furthermore, the questions were obviously aimed at revealing possible bias because of a prior business relationship.  Partiality, or any acts, relationships or motives reasonably likely to produce it, may be proved to impeach credibility. C. McCormick, Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 40, at 78 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972); see Aetna Insurance Co. v. Paddock, 301 F.2d 807, 812 (5th Cir. 1962), quoted in Ellis v. Capps, 500 F.2d 225, 227 (5th Cir. 1974).