Impeachment With A Prior Inconsistent Statement
Before the witness can be impeached the examiner must have extrinsic evidence of the prior statement. The examiner must also provide the witness with the opportunity to adopt or reject the previous statement.
In the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, prior inconsistent statements may not be introduced to prove the truth of the prior statement itself, as this constitutes hearsay, but only to impeach the credibility of the witness.
However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior inconsistent statement may be introduced as evidence of the truth of the statement itself if the prior statement was given in live testimony and under oath as part of a formal hearing, proceeding, trial, or deposition.
- Note that under California Evidence Code ("CEC") ยงยง769, 770, and 1235, prior inconsistent statements may be used for both impeachment and as substantive evidence, even if they were not originally made under oath at a formal proceeding, as long as "the witness was so examined while testifying as to give him an opportunity to explain or to deny the statement."
Read more about this topic: Prior Consistent Statements And Prior Inconsistent Statements
Famous quotes containing the words prior, inconsistent and/or statement:
“They never taste who always drink;
They always talk who never think.”
—Matthew Prior (1664–1721)
“A bureaucracy is sure to think that its duty is to augment official power, official business, or official members, rather than to leave free the energies of mankind; it overdoes the quantity of government, as well as impairs its quality. The truth is, that a skilled bureaucracy ... is, though it boasts of an appearance of science, quite inconsistent with the true principles of the art of business.”
—Walter Bagehot (1826–1877)
“Most personal correspondence of today consists of letters the first half of which are given over to an indexed statement of why the writer hasn’t written before, followed by one paragraph of small talk, with the remainder devoted to reasons why it is imperative that the letter be brought to a close.”
—Robert Benchley (1889–1945)