What did you see next?

You saw a car next, didn't you?

Why didn't you just tell the police where you were that night?

Why did you say you were out of town the night the murder took place?

Did you know the victim?

Credibility is whether the witness is testifying honestly, while reliability is whether the witness's testimony is accurate.

Credibility is whether the witness believes what she is saying, whereas reliability is whether there was anything affecting the witness's perception of the events in question.

Credibility is whether the witness can be trusted, while reliability is whether there is anything affecting the witness's memory.

It is reliably recorded.

The recording was made contemporaneously with the event in question.

The witness can verify the document.

All of the above.

If counsel intends to call a witness who will not be available for recall at a later date, she must ensure the opposing counsel is aware of this.

If counsel intends to rely on present memory revived, she must ensure that the witness does not read the document verbatim.

If counsel intends to present evidence contradictory to a witness’s testimony as part of her argument, she must put this version of events to the witness during cross-examination

“If the answer of a witness is a matter which you would be allowed on your part to prove in evidence… then it is a matter on which you may contradict him. The matter must be connected with the issue as a matter capable of being distinctly given in evidence, or it must be so far connected with it as to be a matter which, in answered in a particular way, would contradict a part of the witness’s testimony; and if it is neither the one or the other of these, it is collateral"

You can’t call evidence to contradict a witness’s answer on a merely collateral matter. Despite the fact that contradicting the witness might be relevant to credibility, the limited probative value is over-whelmed by concerned about trial efficiency and confusion.

Two statements that contradict each other.

Two statements that contradict each other, either directly or through an inference drawn from them.

Could a jury reasonably find that a witness who believed the truth of the facts testified to would have been unlikely to make that prior statement?

Call the witness's attention to the inconsistency.

Make sure the prior inconsistent statement is true.

Impeach the witness.

After the Crown has introduced evidence about the fact of the accused's prior conviction.

When the witness is the accused and has not lead evidence of their own character.

When the witness is not the accused.

Both can be used to impinge credibility of witness.

The expert can give opinion on factors which impinge the credibility of a witness and can draw inferences to the witness in question, but the lay person can only give opinion on the factors which impinge credibility.

The expert can only give opinion about factors which impinge credibility, but in rare cases the lay person can give opinion about whether they think the witness in question is lying.