The Rule in Browne v. Dunn Law and Legal Definition

This is a Rule of evidence that is named after the British case in which it was first established; that if you intend on later impeaching a witness with contradictory evidence, that evidence ought to be put to the witness. Where a witness is not speaking the truth on a particular point, in order to direct his attention to the fact, some questions shall be put in cross-examination showing that the imputation is intended to be made, and not to take his/her evidence and pass it by as a matter altogether unchallenged. If it is impossible for him/her to explain, and circumstances indicate that the story s/he tells ought not to be believed, to argue that he is a witness is unworthy of credit.