What does Rule 608(b) regulate regarding specific acts?

What does Rule 608(b) regulate regarding specific acts?

• A. It allows cross-examination about specific acts that reflect on truthfulness but generally prohibits introducing extrinsic evidence of those acts.
• B. It permits introducing extrinsic evidence of specific acts to prove truthfulness.
• C. It forbids any mention of specific acts during cross-examination.
• D. It requires a court to pre-approve any discussion of specific acts.

Answer: (B)

Rule 608(b) deals with how specific acts can be used to challenge or support a witness’s credibility. The key idea is that you may question a witness on cross-examination about particular past acts that reflect on their honesty, but you cannot prove those acts by introducing extrinsic evidence. In other words, you can ask about the acts themselves during cross-examination to test credibility, but you cannot bring in other witnesses, documents, or other proof to establish that those acts occurred. This evidence-by-extrinsic-proof restriction is what distinguishes 608(b) from simple questioning on cross-examination. Convictions are handled separately under Rule 609, not here. So the correct understanding is that cross-examination about specific acts is allowed to probe truthfulness, but extrinsic evidence of those acts is generally barred.

Rule 608(b) deals with how specific acts can be used to challenge or support a witness’s credibility. The key idea is that you may question a witness on cross-examination about particular past acts that reflect on their honesty, but you cannot prove those acts by introducing extrinsic evidence. In other words, you can ask about the acts themselves during cross-examination to test credibility, but you cannot bring in other witnesses, documents, or other proof to establish that those acts occurred. This evidence-by-extrinsic-proof restriction is what distinguishes 608(b) from simple questioning on cross-examination. Convictions are handled separately under Rule 609, not here. So the correct understanding is that cross-examination about specific acts is allowed to probe truthfulness, but extrinsic evidence of those acts is generally barred.