{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0273972602739726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015068493150684932, 'mean_word_length': 4.991803278688525, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b): A Proposed Revision

The question of when counsel may use extrinsic evidence' of specific acts to attack the credibility of a witness has generated considerable confusion in the case law. The confusion -stems in large part from the loose usage of the words "credibility" and "impeachment" and the consequent failure of counsel and the courts to distinguish between a multiplicity of distinct modes of attack on the believability of a witness's testimony. Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b)2 has not clarified the confusion. On the contrary, by adopting murky language from earlier proposed uniform rules,3 Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) has only added to the unclear statements of law on this issue.