The district court substantially covered Savage's requested instruction by warning the jury to scrutinize all witness testimony, especially the testimony of biased or hostile witnesses, and specifically instructed the jury that it could take
prior inconsistent statements into account when considering witness credibility.
The admission of
prior inconsistent statements is a delicate topic in New York.
asked about their
prior inconsistent statements, the examiner must
(36) See R v B (KG), [1993] 1 SCR 740, 19 CR (4th) 1 (recognizing exceptions to the "orthodox rule that
prior inconsistent statements are admissible only to impeach the credibility of a witness, and not as evidence of the truth of their contents" at 755, cited to SCR).
(3) There are two types of prior statements: prior consistent statements (4) and
prior inconsistent statements. (5) Military Rule of Evidence 613 details the rules for examining a witness on a prior statement and when extrinsic evidence of a
prior inconsistent statement may be admitted.
Ventris (2009), concerning the extent to which a witness may be impeached with
prior inconsistent statements that were obtained in violation of the witness's constitutional rights, and other developments in federal case law, as well as the Congressional enactment of Rule 502, which sets forth new limitations on the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection.
2) The rule that
prior inconsistent statements may not be used substantively as the sole evidence to convict applies to F.S.
Under the common law,
prior inconsistent statements were admissible to impeach a witness's testimony at trial.
The court held that the out of court statement by the anesthesia technician intern at the hospital that "nobody was paying attention" to the patient when he stopped breathing was not admissible during the plaintiffs case-in-chief under any exception to the hearsay rule for
prior inconsistent statements, and that the testimony in any event was conclusory and thus inadmissible.
However, some states, such as Connecticut, have permitted
prior inconsistent statements to be used substantively in such situations.
If you have opportunities for cross involving
prior inconsistent statements, Iannuzzi's treatment of the topic may make this book worth reading.
It is necessary to interpret Rule 801(d)(1)(B)'s exclusion of some prior consistent statements from hearsay in relation to Rule 801(d)(1)(A)'s more significant exclusion of certain
prior inconsistent statements from hearsay.
