In a criminal trial, a witness testifies that they saw the defendant at the scene of the crime. Prior to the trial, the witness provided a written statement denying that they observed the defendant. The defense seeks to introduce this written statement during cross-examination. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is the defense allowed to admit the witness's prior written statement?
The prior inconsistent statement can be introduced to challenge the witness's credibility.
Written statements are limited to supporting the witness's account.
The prior written statement falls under hearsay and cannot be admitted as evidence.
The prior written statement is introduced to verify the truth of the witness's testimony.
The defense is permitted to introduce the prior inconsistent statement to impeach the witness's credibility. According to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), a prior statement by a witness that contradicts their current testimony is not considered hearsay when used for impeachment purposes.
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 is impeachment in the context of a witness's testimony?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does hearsay mean, and why was the written statement not considered hearsay in this case?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are Federal Rules of Evidence, and how do they govern trials?