During a trial for burglary, the prosecution's main witness, Jamie, testifies that they observed the defendant, Alex, enter the victim's residence on the night of the incident. On cross-examination, the defense presents a prior statement where Jamie mentioned they did not observe anyone entering the house that evening. What is the most appropriate way for the defense to utilize this prior statement?
Disregard the prior statement as irrelevant to the current testimony.
Suggest that Jamie has forgotten important details about the event.
Use the prior statement to challenge the reliability of Jamie's current testimony by highlighting the discrepancy.
Introduce the prior statement as evidence that the defendant was not present at the scene.
The defense should challenge the reliability of Jamie's current testimony by pointing out the discrepancy between the two statements. This approach highlights potential issues with the witness's account without introducing new evidence about the defendant's presence or the witness's memory.
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 reliability of a witness's testimony?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is it important for the defense to use prior statements during cross-examination?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean to introduce evidence in a trial?