Under Rule 608(a), which statement correctly describes the use of extrinsic evidence to prove specific instances of conduct to attack or support credibility?

Under Rule 608(a), which statement correctly describes the use of extrinsic evidence to prove specific instances of conduct to attack or support credibility?

• A. Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances; such instances may be inquired into on cross.
• B. Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to prove specific instances of conduct.
• C. Extrinsic evidence is admissible only if the witness agrees.
• D. A witness waives privilege to testify about self-incriminating acts.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is how Rule 608(a) handles evidence about a witness’s truthfulness. You may introduce reputation or opinion evidence about a witness’s character for truthfulness, but when it comes to specific past acts, you don’t prove those acts with extrinsic evidence. Instead, you can question the witness about those specific instances on cross-examination to probe their credibility, and the witness can respond. The goal is to evaluate honesty without letting a stream of past acts be proved through other witnesses or documents, which could overwhelm the credibility assessment. If a prior act is brought up on cross, it’s the cross-examiner’s opportunity to elicit admission, denial, or explanation, but extrinsic evidence to prove the act itself isn’t allowed under this rule. Note that separate rules cover using certain past crimes to attack credibility, but that sits in a different framework than 608(a)’s treatment of specific instances.

The key idea is how Rule 608(a) handles evidence about a witness’s truthfulness. You may introduce reputation or opinion evidence about a witness’s character for truthfulness, but when it comes to specific past acts, you don’t prove those acts with extrinsic evidence. Instead, you can question the witness about those specific instances on cross-examination to probe their credibility, and the witness can respond. The goal is to evaluate honesty without letting a stream of past acts be proved through other witnesses or documents, which could overwhelm the credibility assessment. If a prior act is brought up on cross, it’s the cross-examiner’s opportunity to elicit admission, denial, or explanation, but extrinsic evidence to prove the act itself isn’t allowed under this rule. Note that separate rules cover using certain past crimes to attack credibility, but that sits in a different framework than 608(a)’s treatment of specific instances.