During a cross-examination, a party seeks to use a written statement made by a witness before trial that conflicts with the witness’s current testimony. Which of the following accurately reflects how such prior inconsistent statements are treated under the rules of evidence?
The statement is admissible when it relates specifically to important facts in dispute.
The witness is given an opportunity to address or explain the inconsistent statement during questioning.
The written statement can be admitted when it highlights a clear contradiction in the witness’s testimony.
The statement is required to have been notarized to support its accuracy in court.
For a prior inconsistent statement to be introduced for impeachment, fairness often requires that the witness be given an opportunity to explain or deny the inconsistency. This procedural safeguard ensures that the witness has a fair chance to address the conflicting statement. Notarization is irrelevant to the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements, as evidentiary rules prioritize other factors, such as relevance and procedural fairness. Regarding relevance, the statement does not need to pertain solely to key facts of the case to be admissible. Lastly, while a written statement referring to a material inconsistency is important, admissibility depends on satisfying the foundational requirements, such as providing the witness an opportunity to respond.
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 are prior inconsistent statements in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is it important to give a witness the chance to explain their inconsistent statement?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the foundational requirements for admitting a prior inconsistent statement?