1.  If the defendant in a tax fraud prosecution testifies in her own defense, can the government ask her on cross-examination about a deceptive resume she sent to a prospective employer ten years ago?  Under what circumstances, if any, can the government introduce the resume itself?

2.  Suppose the defendant chooses not to testify but calls a character witness who testifies that he knows the defendant well and that she is "upright and extremely ethical."  Can the government ask the witness whether he knows about the deceptive resume?  Under what circumstances, if any, can the government introduce the resume itself?

1.  A defendant prosecuted for felony tax fraud has previously been convicted of the same offense.  If the defendant testifies, does the judge has discretion to exclude impeachment with the prior conviction?

2.  A defendant prosecuted in federal court for embezzlement moves before trial to exclude evidence of his prior felony conviction in state court for shoplifting.  The trial judge rules that the evidence is admissible as proof of intent and also, if the defendant testifies, for impeachment.  Must the defendant testify in order to challenge this ruling on appeal?

1.  Suppose Wendy testifies before a grand jury that her brother Dan told her he had set fire to a post office.  At Dan's subsequent federal trial for arson, the prosecution calls Wendy as a witness, but she denies ever hearing her brother admit to setting the fire.  The prosecutor asks her, "Didn't you testify before a grand jury that Dan told you he had set fire to a post office?"  Wendy denies having so testified.  After Wendy leaves the stand, may the government introduce a transcript of her grand jury testimony?

2.  Suppose the jury in Dan's trial deadlocks and the judge declares a mistrial.  In a subsequent retrial, the government again calls Wendy as a witness, and she again denies ever hearing her brother say that he set fire to a post office.  May the prosecutor again ask Wendy about her contrary testimony before the grand jury?

3.  Suppose that Dana is charged with bank robbery.  At trial she claims mistaken identity and testifies that on the afternoon of the assault she was visiting her friend Alex.  Alex has told the same story to government investigators, but they disbelieve him, partly because he was recently convicted of bank robbery in an unrelated case.  Dana does not call Alex as a witness.  The government calls Alex to the stand in its rebuttal case, and he corroborates Dana's account.  May the prosecutor now ask him about the bank robbery conviction?  What if the prior conviction were for perjury?

1.  [Separately copyrighted material -- see the casebook.]

 2.  Suppose a truck collides with a motorcycle and the motorcyclist sues the truck driver.  Ethan testifies that he saw the accident while waiting for a bus, and that the truck was speeding.  Ethan previously told an insurance adjuster that he saw the accident while waiting to meet a friend—at least, so the adjuster recalls.  When asked on cross-examination about his conversation with the adjuster, Ethan insists he told the adjuster he was waiting for a bus.  In order to impeach Ethan, may the truck driver elicit testimony from the adjuster that Ethan said he saw the accident while waiting for a friend?

1.  The plaintiff in a medical malpractice case calls a physician as an expert witness.  The physician admits on cross-examination that she is being paid $5,000 for her testimony.  Can the plaintiff now call a witness to testify that the physician is honest or has a reputation for honesty?

2.  The prosecution in a shoplifting case calls a department store employee who testifies that she saw the defendant, while in a dressing room, cut price tags from clothing and stuff them in her shopping bag.  On cross-examination, defense counsel suggests that it would have been impossible for the witness to see what she claims to have seen through the slats of the dressing room door.  Can the prosecution now call the employee's supervisor to testify that, in the supervisor's opinion, the employee would not lie under oath?

In a bank robbery case, a teller who saw the robber testifies that he had a moustache.  On cross-examination, the teller admits that two days after the robbery he told a police detective that the robber had no facial hair.  The prosecution then calls the bank manager and seeks to have her testify that, several hours after the robbery, the teller told the bank manager that the robber had "a bushy moustache."  Is this testimony admissible?

________________________