Learning Outcomes
This article explains how contradiction operates as a method of impeaching witnesses in evidence law, including:
- Recognizing fact patterns in which a party is attacking the accuracy of in‑court testimony rather than the witness’s character or prior statements.
- Distinguishing contradiction from other impeachment techniques—especially prior inconsistent statements, bias, and character for truthfulness—and predicting which doctrine an exam question is testing.
- Applying the collateral‑matter rule to decide when extrinsic evidence of contradiction is admissible, when the examiner is “stuck with” the witness’s answer, and how Rule 403 balancing may limit proof.
- Identifying material versus collateral facts in common MBE scenarios, such as eyewitness identification, alibi disputes, and minor background details.
- Explaining how contradiction fits within the scope of cross‑examination under Rule 611(b), including when leading questions and new topics are permitted.
- Evaluating whether a single item of evidence can serve both as substantive proof and as impeachment by contradiction or prior inconsistent statement.
- Analyzing bar‑exam style questions that mix contradiction with bias, impeachment by conviction, or hearsay, and selecting the best answer choice.
- Developing a practical checklist for exam essays and multiple‑choice questions to determine the proper impeachment method and the admissibility of any extrinsic evidence offered for contradiction.
MBE Syllabus
For the MBE, you are required to understand contradiction as a tool for challenging witness credibility within the broader presentation-of-evidence topic, with a focus on the following syllabus points:
- Contradiction as a method of impeaching witnesses.
- The distinction between contradiction and other impeachment techniques (e.g., bias, prior inconsistent statements, character).
- The rules governing when extrinsic evidence of contradiction is admissible.
- The definition and application of “collateral matters” in contradiction analysis.
- The relationship between contradiction and the permissible scope of cross-examination.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Which of the following best describes contradiction as used in evidence law?
- Introducing evidence of a witness’s prior convictions.
- Challenging a witness with evidence that disputes their in-court testimony.
- Showing a witness’s bias by revealing their relationship to a party.
- Using prior inconsistent statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
-
When is extrinsic evidence of contradiction generally inadmissible?
- When it relates to a material fact.
- When it concerns a collateral matter.
- When it is offered during cross-examination.
- When it is based on a prior inconsistent statement.
-
If a witness testifies that it was raining at the time of an accident, which of the following is a proper method of contradiction?
- Asking about their criminal record.
- Introducing a weather report showing it was not raining.
- Questioning their reputation for truthfulness.
- Showing they were not present at the scene.
-
A witness testifies on direct that she “has never met the defendant before this trial.” The opposing party wants to call another witness to testify that the two worked together for a year. May the opposing party use this extrinsic evidence?
- No, because it relates only to credibility and is therefore collateral.
- No, because extrinsic evidence is never admissible solely to impeach a witness.
- Yes, because it contradicts a factual assertion that is relevant to bias and credibility.
- Yes, but only if the first witness is first asked about her employment history.
Introduction
Contradiction is a fundamental method for attacking the credibility of a witness. Instead of focusing on the witness’s character or past statements, contradiction targets the accuracy of the specific testimony given in court. The idea is simple: if a witness is wrong (or lying) about a concrete fact, the factfinder may doubt their testimony as a whole.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (applied on the MBE), any party may impeach any witness, including their own. Contradiction is one of several impeachment techniques, alongside:
- Bias or interest.
- Prior inconsistent statements.
- Character for truthfulness (reputation, opinion, and certain specific acts).
- Defects in perception, memory, or narration.
Key Term: Impeachment
The process of attacking a witness’s credibility, aiming to reduce the weight the factfinder gives to the witness’s testimony.Key Term: Contradiction
The process of challenging a witness’s testimony by introducing evidence that directly disputes a specific factual assertion made by the witness in court.
Contradiction may arise through further questioning of the same witness (on cross-examination or redirect) or through introducing other evidence, such as another witness’s testimony, documents, or physical exhibits. When the impeaching party relies on evidence other than the witness’s own testimony, that evidence is called extrinsic evidence.
Key Term: Extrinsic Evidence
Evidence from a source other than the witness being impeached (e.g., another witness, a document, a photograph) offered to contradict or otherwise impeach the witness.
Because contradiction can easily distract the jury with side issues, courts limit when extrinsic evidence of contradiction is allowed. This is where the collateral-matter rule and the concept of materiality become especially important.
Key Term: Material Fact
A fact that is of substantive importance to the case—because it helps prove or disprove an element, a defense, or the amount of damages.
Contradiction as a Method of Impeachment
Contradiction is used to show that a witness’s testimony is factually incorrect. This can be done by confronting the witness with evidence that is inconsistent with their statements. Contradiction may occur during cross-examination or by introducing other evidence.
Contradiction is not the same as impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, which involves showing that the witness previously made a statement inconsistent with their current testimony. Contradiction focuses on the truth or falsity of the in-court statement itself.
- Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement: The focus is on showing that the witness has told different stories at different times. The prior statement may or may not show that the in-court testimony is actually wrong.
- Impeachment by contradiction: The focus is on showing that the specific in-court testimony is wrong by offering evidence of what actually happened.
A single item of evidence can sometimes serve both roles. For example, a prior written statement describing the accident as occurring at noon contradicts in-court testimony that it occurred at midnight. That writing is both a prior inconsistent statement and extrinsic evidence that contradicts the in-court testimony.
Forms of Contradiction
Contradiction can be:
- From the same witness: Elicited from the witness being impeached, usually on cross-examination.
Example: “You testified you were alone at home. Isn’t it true that your neighbor was visiting you at that time?” - Extrinsic: Established through external proof.
Example: Calling another witness or introducing a video showing that the witness was at a bar, not at home, at the relevant time.
Contradiction elicited from the same witness is almost always permissible so long as it falls within the scope of cross-examination. Extrinsic contradiction triggers the collateral-matter limitation discussed below.
Key Term: Scope of Cross-Examination
Under the Federal Rules, cross-examination is generally limited to (1) the subject matter of the direct examination and (2) matters affecting the witness’s credibility, including impeachment.
Limits on Contradiction: Collateral Matters
A key limitation on contradiction is the collateral-matter rule. If the contradiction concerns a collateral matter—one not directly relevant to the issues in the case—extrinsic evidence (e.g., testimony from another witness or documents) is generally not admissible. The cross-examiner is bound by the witness’s answer on collateral matters.
Key Term: Collateral Matter
A fact that is not directly relevant to any substantive issue, bias, or another permissible impeachment purpose, and that is introduced solely to contradict a witness’s testimony.
A commonly used test:
A fact is collateral if it could not be proved for any purpose other than to contradict the witness. If the fact has independent relevance—e.g., it goes to an element, a defense, bias, or capacity—it is not collateral, and extrinsic evidence may be allowed.
However, if the contradiction concerns a material fact—one that is relevant to the issues in dispute—extrinsic evidence may be admitted to contradict the witness. In that situation, the evidence typically serves both a substantive purpose (proving the fact) and an impeachment purpose (showing the witness was wrong).
Courts also rely on Rule 403 balancing. Even when a matter is not collateral, extrinsic evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, or wasting time.
Practical Consequences of the Collateral-Matter Rule
- On collateral matters, the cross-examiner may ask about the topic, but must accept the witness’s answer. No additional witnesses or documents may be introduced solely to contradict that answer.
- On non-collateral (material) matters, the cross-examiner may introduce extrinsic evidence to contradict.
- Some facts that initially appear collateral are non-collateral because they show bias, interest, or another recognized impeachment ground. These are generally fair game for extrinsic evidence.
Note: The Federal Rules do not explicitly codify a “collateral matter” rule. Instead, trial judges use their general discretion under Rules 403 and 611 to exclude distracting or time-consuming impeachment on minor points. For MBE purposes, assume the traditional collateral-matter limitation applies.
Key Term: Bias
A relationship, interest, or attitude that gives a witness a motive to favor or disfavor a party, thereby potentially distorting the witness’s testimony.
Bias is never treated as a purely collateral issue—extrinsic evidence to show bias is allowed (subject to Rule 403).
Worked Example 1.1
A witness testifies that she saw the defendant at the scene of a burglary at 10 p.m. The defense calls a second witness who testifies that the first witness was at a movie theater across town at 10 p.m.
Answer:
The defense is properly using contradiction to challenge the first witness’s testimony on a material fact—the defendant’s presence at the scene. Because the contradiction concerns a material issue (the witness’s presence at the scene), extrinsic evidence is admissible. The second witness’s testimony is relevant both substantively (where the first witness actually was) and for impeachment (showing the first witness is wrong).
Worked Example 1.2
During cross-examination, a witness testifies that she always wears a blue scarf to work. The opposing party seeks to introduce a photograph showing the witness at work wearing a red scarf.
Answer:
This is contradiction on a collateral matter. The color of the scarf is not relevant to any issue in the case and does not bear on bias, capacity, or any recognized impeachment ground. The cross-examiner is bound by the witness’s answer and may not introduce extrinsic evidence. Allowing a photograph simply to show the witness was wrong about an insignificant detail would waste time and risk distracting the jury.
Worked Example 1.3
In a fraud trial, a witness for the plaintiff testifies on cross-examination, “I have never been convicted of any crime.” The defendant seeks to introduce a certified record of the witness’s prior conviction for mail fraud from three years ago.
Answer:
Extrinsic evidence is admissible here. A prior conviction for a qualifying crime (e.g., a felony or a crime involving dishonesty) is independently admissible to impeach a witness’s character for truthfulness under Rule 609. The conviction is therefore not a purely collateral matter. The certified record both contradicts the witness’s in-court statement and serves as character impeachment; it may be proved with extrinsic evidence.
Worked Example 1.4
In a personal injury case, a defense witness testifies that the plaintiff told him she was “barely touched” by the car. On cross-examination, the plaintiff wants to show that the witness is an adjuster for the defendant’s insurance company.
Answer:
The plaintiff is not using contradiction but impeachment for bias. The witness’s employment by the defendant’s insurer suggests a motive to minimize the plaintiff’s injuries. Under Rule 411, evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove negligence, but it is admissible to show bias. Because bias is never considered collateral, extrinsic evidence of his employment (e.g., through documents or another witness) is allowed for impeachment purposes, though not as substantive proof of negligence.
Worked Example 1.5
At a defendant’s trial for mail fraud, the defendant calls his wife, who testifies that she alone committed the fraud. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asks, “Isn’t it true that you have fled your home several times in fear of your husband?”
Answer:
The question is proper, but it is aimed at bias, not contradiction. The prosecutor is attempting to show that the wife fears the defendant and may have a motive to take the blame for him. This is impeachment by showing motive to lie. Because bias is non-collateral, extrinsic evidence could be admitted if necessary. Rule 403 does not bar the question because the probative value in exposing a possible motive to fabricate is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
These examples illustrate a key exam pattern: when the impeaching evidence has independent relevance (e.g., to bias, character for truthfulness, or an element of the claim), it is not collateral and extrinsic proof may be allowed.
Contradiction and the Scope of Cross-Examination
Contradiction is most commonly attempted during cross-examination. The examiner may ask questions designed to elicit admissions that contradict the witness’s earlier statements. If the contradiction concerns a material issue, extrinsic evidence may be introduced if the witness denies the contradiction.
If the contradiction concerns a collateral issue, the examiner must accept the witness’s answer and may not introduce extrinsic evidence to dispute it.
Under Rule 611(b), cross-examination is generally limited to:
- The subject matter of the direct examination; and
- Matters affecting the witness’s credibility (including contradiction, bias, prior inconsistent statements, and character for truthfulness).
This means:
- A cross-examiner may contradict a witness regarding facts discussed on direct, so long as the normal rules of relevance and the collateral-matter limitation are observed.
- Even if a topic was not covered on direct, the cross-examiner may ask questions that impeach the witness’s credibility, including questions that lay the groundwork for contradiction.
Because contradiction often overlaps with credibility, courts are fairly permissive in allowing cross-examination that probes for contradictions. Leading questions are routinely permitted on cross-examination, including when the purpose is to contradict.
Key Term: Scope of Cross-Examination
The range of topics that may be explored on cross-examination, generally limited to the subject matter of direct examination and issues affecting credibility, such as contradiction and bias.
Contradiction vs. Prior Inconsistent Statements on Cross
A frequent MBE trap is confusing contradiction with prior inconsistent statements:
- When counsel confronts the witness with a prior inconsistent statement, the focus is on the mismatch between two statements. The prior statement may be used only for impeachment or, if it meets hearsay conditions (e.g., sworn prior testimony under Rule 801(d)(1)(A)), also as substantive evidence.
- When counsel contradicts the witness with other evidence (e.g., physical evidence, a third-party witness), the new evidence is usually offered substantively to show what actually happened, and simultaneously impeaches by showing the witness’s version is wrong.
For both, the collateral-matter limitation restricts use of extrinsic evidence when the fact itself is trivial and relevant only insofar as it undermines the witness.
Strategic Considerations on Cross
From a strategic standpoint, a cross-examiner must:
- Decide whether the point is important enough to justify contradiction, especially if extrinsic evidence and additional witnesses will be required.
- Consider whether contradiction on small details might backfire by appearing nitpicky or confusing the jury.
- Remember that if a point is collateral, the examiner is “stuck” with the witness’s answer and cannot cure it with extrinsic proof.
Exam Warning
Contradiction is often confused with impeachment by prior inconsistent statement. Remember: contradiction disputes the truth of the in-court statement, while prior inconsistent statement focuses on the witness’s credibility by showing inconsistency. On the MBE, ask whether the evidence is offered to prove what actually happened (contradiction) or to show the witness has told different stories (prior inconsistent statement).
Revision Tip
Before attempting to contradict a witness using extrinsic evidence, always ask whether the fact has independent relevance to a material issue, bias, capacity, or another recognized impeachment ground. If not, it is likely collateral, and extrinsic evidence will not be allowed.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- Contradiction is a method of impeaching a witness by disputing the factual accuracy of their in-court testimony.
- Contradiction differs from impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, which targets inconsistencies between statements rather than directly proving the in-court testimony false.
- Extrinsic evidence of contradiction is admissible when the contradicted fact is material or otherwise independently relevant (e.g., to bias or character for truthfulness).
- On collateral matters—facts relevant solely because they contradict the witness—courts generally bar extrinsic evidence; the cross-examiner is bound by the witness’s answer.
- Bias and interest are never collateral; extrinsic evidence to show bias is allowed, even if it indirectly contradicts testimony.
- The Federal Rules do not expressly codify the collateral-matter rule, but judges enforce a similar limitation through relevance and Rule 403 balancing.
- Contradiction is typically pursued on cross-examination, which is limited to the subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting credibility, including contradiction itself.
- Evidence used for contradiction often serves a dual role: substantive proof of a fact and impeachment of a witness whose testimony conflicts with that fact.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Impeachment
- Contradiction
- Extrinsic Evidence
- Material Fact
- Collateral Matter
- Bias
- Scope of Cross-Examination