{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Voices at Temple","provider_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices","title":"Impeaching By Omission - Voices at Temple","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wDiUbytIOZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/impeaching-by-omission\/\">Impeaching By Omission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/impeaching-by-omission\/embed\/#?secret=wDiUbytIOZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Impeaching By Omission&#8221; &#8212; Voices at Temple\" data-secret=\"wDiUbytIOZ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/Impeachment-Witness-2.png","thumbnail_width":840,"thumbnail_height":560,"description":"The art of witness impeachment is inextricably bound with the substantive law of evidence. Evidence rules explicitly allow for impeachment of any witness (even one called by\u00a0the party) and set the procedures for attacking with inconsistencies \u2013 the impeaching\u00a0document need not be shown to the witness, and impeachment must occur with there being\u00a0some opportunity for the witness to respond and explain. But the rules are silent on at least\u00a0two critical issues \u2013 the\u00a0why\u00a0of impeachment, and a definition of what exactly makes a prior\u00a0statement \u201cinconsistent.\u201d The former question is one answered not in evidence law but in the art and techniques\u00a0of advocacy. We impeach witnesses to discredit in-court testimony and show them to be liars\u00a0or mistaken and unreliable. We impeach witnesses to tell or support our own story. We\u00a0impeach witnesses for the drama it brings to the courtroom and the control it places in the\u00a0hands of the questioner. As to when a prior statement is \u201cinconsistent,\u201d there is little in terms of a definition\u00a0beyond inconsistency being in the eye of the advocate\/beholder, with a judge viewing &hellip;"}