Rule 607 Who may impeach.
Rule Text
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
Any side in a case can challenge a witness's honesty or believability, even the side that put that witness on the stand. This means if a lawyer calls a witness to testify and that witness ends up saying something unexpected or unhelpful, the lawyer isn't stuck with their answer. They can question the witness's credibility just like the other side could.
This rule exists because sometimes a witness surprises the person who called them, or their story doesn't match what they said before. Before this kind of rule existed, lawyers were often stuck defending witnesses they called, even when those witnesses gave bad or false information. Now, the truth matters more than who happened to bring the witness into court.
In practice, this means no witness gets a free pass just because of who asked them to testify. Both sides can point out inconsistencies, past dishonesty, or other reasons to doubt what a witness says, no matter which side originally called them.
Committee Notes
Advisory Committee’s Notes
Historically, one calling a witness has been held to vouch for that witness’s credibility; consequently, the courts generally have refused to permit impeachment by the party calling the witness. Holloway v. Robertson, 500 So.2d 1056 (Ala.1986); Flournoy v. State, 270 Ala. 448, 120 So.2d 124 (1960). See C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 165.01(6) (4th ed. 1991); W. Schroeder, J. Hoffman, & R. Thigpen, Alabama Evidence § 6-1 (1987). A trend away from this traditional “voucher rule” has been evidenced by rules or rulings dealing with exceptional situations in which the calling party has been permitted to impeach. One may, for example, call and impeach an adverse party. Ala.R.Civ.P. 43(b) (superseded by Rule 607). Additionally, any party may impeach any witness with that witness’s deposition. Ala.R.Civ.P. 32(a)(1) (superseded by Rule 607). This trend has been manifested on the criminal side by the judicial recognition of an adverse witness principle. See Anderton v. State, 390 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 390 So.2d 1087 (Ala.1980); Wiggins v. State, 398 So.2d 780 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 398 So.2d 783 (Ala.1981). See also C. Gamble & F. James III, Perspectives on the Evidence Law of Alabama: A Decade of Evolution, 1977-1987, 40 Ala.L.Rev. 95, 112 (1988); C. Gamble, C. Howard, & J. McElroy, The Turncoat or Chameleonic Witness: Use of His Prior Inconsistent Statement, 34 Ala.L.Rev. 1 (1983).
Rule 607, adopted verbatim from the corresponding Federal Rule of Evidence, abandons the voucher rule and is based upon the premise that a party regularly calls whichever witnesses are available and, consequently, does not vouch for their credibility or otherwise hold them out as worthy of belief. Rule 607 allows any party to impeach any witness.