Gonzalez & Waddington – Elite Court-Martial & Military Defense Attorneys
CALL NOW 1-800-921-8607
Menu
Home
Attorneys
Michael Waddington
Alexandra González-Waddington
Results
Videos
Reviews
Practice Areas
Court Martial Defense
Article 120 UCMJ Sexual Offenses
Military Sexual Harassment
False Sexual Assault Accusations
Internet Sting Operations – To Catch a Predator Ops
Your Rights Under the UCMJ
Military Administrative Separations
All UCMJ Offenses
Army AR 15-6 Investigations and GOMORs
Reprimand Rebuttals
Separation Boards
Administrative Separation Boards & Boards of Inquiry
Administrative Separation Boards
Army Criminal Defense
Army Separation Boards
Army Boards of Inquiry
Army GOMOR Rebuttals
Navy Criminal Defense
Navy Separation Boards
Navy Officer Boards of Inquiry
Air Force Criminal Defense
Air Force Separation Boards
Marine Corps Criminal Defense
Marine Corps Separation Boards
Coast Guard Criminal Defense
Coast Guard Separation Boards
In the News
Payments
Contact Us
CALL NOW 1-800-921-8607
Menu
Home
Attorneys
Michael Waddington
Alexandra González-Waddington
Results
Videos
Reviews
Practice Areas
Court Martial Defense
Article 120 UCMJ Sexual Offenses
Military Sexual Harassment
False Sexual Assault Accusations
Internet Sting Operations – To Catch a Predator Ops
Your Rights Under the UCMJ
Military Administrative Separations
All UCMJ Offenses
Army AR 15-6 Investigations and GOMORs
Reprimand Rebuttals
Separation Boards
Administrative Separation Boards & Boards of Inquiry
Administrative Separation Boards
Army Criminal Defense
Army Separation Boards
Army Boards of Inquiry
Army GOMOR Rebuttals
Navy Criminal Defense
Navy Separation Boards
Navy Officer Boards of Inquiry
Air Force Criminal Defense
Air Force Separation Boards
Marine Corps Criminal Defense
Marine Corps Separation Boards
Coast Guard Criminal Defense
Coast Guard Separation Boards
In the News
Payments
Contact Us
Rule 607. Who May Impeach
Under prior practice, the party calling a witness was said to “vouch” for the witness. Ordinarily, that meant the party could not attack the credibility of that witness. However, for purposes of impeachment, a witness need not be adverse.
Rule 607 provides that “[t]he credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.” The
rule contemplates impeachment, however, not the attempted introduction of evidence which
otherwise is hearsay. Put differently, the Government may not use impeachment by prior inconsistent
statement as a “subterfuge” to avoid the hearsay rule
.
United States
v. Hogan, 763 F.2d 697, 702 (5th Cir. 1985). United States v. Ureta, 44 M.J. 290 (1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 692 (1997).
Falsely Accused of Sexual Assault? What to Do If It Happens to You
Related Posts
Video: Court Martial Lawyer on Biased Investigators Article 120b UCMJ Military Sexual Assault
Video: El Paso TX Article 120 UCMJ Court Martial Attorneys – Military Defense Lawyers
Video: Article 120 UCMJ – Rush to Judgment False Accusations Defense Lawyers
UCMJ Article 134 Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline
Article 103b UCMJ Attempting to Aid the Enemy
U.S. v. Army E-4 – Fort Stewart, GA
Disqualification of Military Panel Members – Mechanics
Fort Bliss Military Defense Lawyers