All Prior Acts Are Rule 608
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
14821_daniel_robotics_tablet_trade · EVIDENCE · Choice ANo, because the testimony contradicts Daniel only on a collateral matter.
Why it's attractive
The choice calls the contradiction collateral even though the charge and Daniel's testimony both center on stolen electronics.
Why it's wrong
The choice calls the contradiction collateral even though the charge and Daniel's testimony both center on stolen electronics.
14821_daniel_robotics_tablet_trade · EVIDENCE · Choice CYes, because taking stolen property in trade shows a disregard for the law and makes it less likely that Daniel would respect the oath of truthfulness.
Why it's attractive
This answer says yes but justifies it by general lawbreaking character.
Why it's wrong
This answer says yes but justifies it by general lawbreaking character.
14821_daniel_robotics_tablet_trade · EVIDENCE · Choice DNo, because taking stolen property in trade is not sufficiently probative of a witness's character for truthfulness.
Why it's attractive
This answer evaluates the prior act as general veracity proof instead of asking whether it contradicts the specific testimony.
Why it's wrong
This answer evaluates the prior act as general veracity proof instead of asking whether it contradicts the specific testimony.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →