IMPEACHING THEIR OWN WITNESS Trial Day 12

@brandy.velez

4.4K followers · usually 1.2K views a post

Views

47.6K

Likes

1.2K

Comments

SoundTikTok sound · original sound - brandy.velez

Why it worked

The video likely performed well due to the dramatic and unusual nature of a prosecution impeaching its own witness, creating a "gotcha" moment that is inherently engaging for viewers interested in legal dramas and true crime.

Summary

This video discusses a legal moment in Trial Day 12 where the prosecution attempts to impeach their own witness, Dr. Barbara Allston. The prosecutor highlights an inconsistency between the witness's current testimony and a previous statement, which is a tactic used to challenge credibility.

Structure

1Prosecution attempts to impeach their own witness
2Discussion of the legal implications of impeaching one's own witness
3Dr. Allston's testimony is questioned due to an inconsistent statement
4The prosecutor points out the inconsistency to the jury
5The credibility of the witness is now in question

On-screen text

IMPEACHING THEIR OWN WITNESS Trial Day 12 THE PROSECUTION TRYING TO IMPEACH ITS OWN WITNESS WHAT DO YOU THE TIME LOSS OF THAT'S WHAT MEANS NO OVERRULED ASK HER MAKE IT AND IF ISN'T CONSTANT SAY TO GET FREE AND IT "OBJECTION" DOES THAT SUSTAINED SUSTAINED SUSTAINED AND ONCE SOMEONE LOSES CONSCIOUSNESS DO THEY IMMEDIATELY UM THE ALIVE UNTIL THE SUSTAIN OF STRANGLED POINT OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND THE STRANGULATION STOPS CAN THEY WAKE WITHOUT INTERVENTION VERY UNLIKELY SO DO YOU RECALL TESTIFYING PREVIOUSLY THAT WHEN ASKED WERE A LIGATURE SOMEONE'S NECK OUT BUT BUT COUNCIL WE WE'VE THAT ANSWER IT'S AN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT WITNESS AND I CAN INCONSISTENT AT SIDEBAR AT SIDEBAR SUSTAINED THIS ENTIRE DEBACLE BUT TRIAL DAY 12 OF LEGAL MOMENTS YET SO DOCTOR IS TESTIFYING AND THE PROSECUTOR BELIEVES PART SAYING DOES SOMETHING SHE SAID REDD OBJECTS THE JUDGE AND TELLS THE BUT THIS IS AND RESPONDS I KNOW AND I IMPEACH INCONSISTENT SO WHAT THAT IT MEANS PROSECUTOR WHAT DOES WITH WHAT YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY CONFRONT THAT'S CALLED IMPEACHMENT BY PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT AND YES YOUR OWN WITNESS THE WITNESS HAS THE PRIOR AND TO INCONSISTENCY BUT THAT IS MOST WHEN YOU ARE YOU ARE STAND BECAUSE SOME PART OF THEIR TESTIMONY IS SUPPOSED TO HELP YOU PROVE YOUR CASE SO REACH WHERE CHALLENGING THE CREDIBILITY WITNESS THE JURY THAT CREATES DIFFERENT DYNAMIC BUT NOW THE THE PROSECUTION ITSELF THAT ONE OWN HAS DIFFERENT INCONSISTENT AND NOW CREDIBILITY IS ULTIMATELY TO THE JURY

Original caption

Judge: “but this is your witness” .. The prosecution still moved to impeach witness #LindsayClancy #CourtroomPsychology #LegalTok #TrueCrime #tiktokgrowthchallenge

More from @brandy.velez

More breakout videos from this creator.

Transcript

The prosecution trying to impeach its own witness. What do you mean by accelerate the time to loss of consciousness? That's what happens. Means no. Overruled. Ask her. Make it and if isn't constant, say, someone struggles to get free and then you have to tighten it again. "Objection." Does that sustained. Sustained. Sustained. And once someone loses consciousness, do they immediately... Um, no. So the person is alive until the sustain, the body can no longer sustain the lack of oxygen. If strangled to the point of unconsciousness and the strangulation stops, can they wake without intervention? Very unlikely. So do you recall testifying previously that when asked, were a ligature, someone's neck out, but council, we've that answer. It's an inconsistent statement. Witness. And I can impeach with an inconsistent statement. At sidebar. At sidebar. Sustained. This entire debacle, but trial day 12 gave us one of the legal moments yet. So Doctor Barbara Allston is testifying and the prosecutor believes part saying does something she said before. Redd objects. The judge stops and tells the prosecution, but this is your witness. And she responds, I know. And I impeach with an inconsistent statement. So what does that actually mean? Prosecutor. What you're telling this jury right now does not line up with what you said previously. Confront. That's called impeachment by prior inconsistent statement. And in Massachusetts, yes, you can impeach your own witness. The witness has to be given the prior statement and an opportunity to explain the inconsistency. But here's the part that is most important. When you are calling a witness, you are putting them on the stand because some part of their testimony is supposed to help you prove your case. So when you reach the point where you are challenging the credibility of your own witness in front of the jury, that creates a different dynamic. But now the prosecution itself points out that one of its own witnesses has different inconsistent information. And now credibility is ultimately up to the jury.