A plaintiff calls a witness to testify in a personal injury case. During cross-examination, defense counsel presents evidence of a prior inconsistent statement made by the witness. Under the rules of evidence, what is the primary purpose of introducing the prior inconsistent statement?
To prove the facts contained in the prior statement
To demonstrate the witness’s ability to observe and remember events accurately
To challenge the credibility of the witness
To establish the witness’s character for truthfulness
The primary purpose of introducing a prior inconsistent statement is to challenge the credibility of the witness, not to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. By doing so, the opposing side attempts to show that the witness has made conflicting claims, undermining their reliability. If the statement is admitted for impeachment purposes, it is treated as evidence affecting credibility unless independently admissible otherwise. Misinterpreting impeachment evidence as substantive evidence is a common mistake, making it essential to recognize its limited scope.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean to challenge the credibility of a witness?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are prior inconsistent statements and how are they used in court?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is impeachment evidence and how does it differ from substantive evidence?