California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Davidson, F060378, Super. Ct. No. BF127448A (Cal. App. 2011):
[Citation.] The court should also consider if less severe remedies are available before employing the 'drastic solution' of striking the witness's entire testimony. [Citation.] These include striking part of the testimony or allowing the trier of fact to consider the witness's failure to answer in evaluating his credibility." (People v. Seminoff (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 518, 525-526.)
"[T]here is solid support, both judicial and scholarly, for the proposition that when one or two questions asked during cross-examination are at stake and those questions relate to a collateral matter such as the nonparty witness's credibility, the trial court need not strike the entirety of that witness's direct testimony." (People v. Sanders (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 543, 556.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.