I agree, I have a trial brief that I use on that issue--it has worked sometimes, and not worked others. But here, it was actually a valid impeachment on an incorrect address.

Problem was, the pc affid was really bad (wrong names inserted, wrong offense inserted, etc.), and also said my driver for the evading was the passenger. The officer testified it was a typo, and swore under oath the defendant was the driver, but the jury was really focused on that report that they felt could explain. Unfortunately, the report didn't mention specifically that the officer saw the defendant get out of the driver's seat. Multiple officers pulled the occupants out at gunpoint, so for some reason the officer didn't put in his report which officer pulled the defendant out of the driver seat, so I couldn't use it as a prior consistent statement even. But the jury really felt that the report was essential and after the second or third note requesting it, came back with a not guilty almost immediately.

Ouch. Bet that officer learned something that day...

Yep, I can only hope. It's topic no. 1 in a presentation I'm giving in January.

I understand Amanda Knox was doing cartwheels at the police station prior to giving her statement and she gave several different versions of what happened. I think bizarre behavior and varying accounts of what happened by a defendant have led to many convictions in the United States. I don't know all the details of the case, and I don't claim to know if she was guilty or not, but this type of behavior could easily lead to a conviction in Texas.

Ed Lane

I routinely tell juries in closing arguments that police reports and witness statements referred to by witnesses during the trial are hearsay and are typically not entered into evidence for that very reason. I've never had an objection to this argument. It allows the jury to understand why something might be referred to but not offered, and it cuts down on the notes from the jury asking to see the report or statement.