In this article, Davis LLP's Brendan Clancy canvasses recent
caselaw on the rule in Browne v. Dunn. The rule provides
that if Party A intends to lead evidence that conflicts with the
testimony of Party B, Party B should be given advance notice of
that conflicting evidence prior to or on the occasion of his or her
cross-examination. This is so that the witness is given "an
opportunity to explain what might otherwise appear to be
contradictions in the witness' evidence."
Recent caselaw suggests that though the rationale behind the
rule remains intact, the rule has been relaxed. Specifically, Party
B need not be cross-examined on the conflicting evidence if there
is reason to believe that Party A gave reasonable notice of the
conflicting evidence by other means. Brendan further clarifies,
