Opinion ID: 607860
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impeaching a Witness by Using His Religious Beliefs

Text: 12 To rebut the defendants' contention that they had a financial motive to set fire to the premises, the Maleks called an accountant, William Schneck, to testify as to their financial stability. During the cross examination of Schneck, the following colloquy took place: 13 Q. Was your principal a member of the Hassidic [sic] community in the business transaction you had with Mr. Malek? 14 [The Maleks' Attorney]: Objection, your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Overruled. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you act as a CPA for other members of the Hassidic [sic] community? 18 [The Maleks' Attorney]: Objection. 19 THE COURT: Overruled. 20 A. Not just Hassidic [sic] people. 21 Q. I didn't ask you that. 22 A. In that respect, yes. There's a number of people that I do that for. 23 Q. You've been a professor at Tuoro [sic] University for eight years, is that correct? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And that's part of the Yeshiva University system, isn't [it]? 26 [The Maleks' Attorney]: Objection. 27 THE COURT: I'll permit it. 28 A. It's not a member, no. 29 Q. Isn't it affiliated with organized Jewish institutions? 30 [The Maleks' Attorney]: Objection. 31 THE COURT: Sustained. 32 The district court gave no limiting instruction to the jury to indicate that it was improper for the defendants to impeach Schneck's credibility with evidence of his religious affiliations or beliefs. 33 After deliberating for approximately an hour-and-a-half, the jury delivered a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the district court dismissed the Maleks' complaint.