Is a prior inconsistent statement admissible when it was given under oath and subject to cross-examination?

Is a prior inconsistent statement admissible when it was given under oath and subject to cross-examination?

• A. True
• B. Only if unavailable
• C. False
• D. Only if the statement is consistent

Answer: (A)

A prior inconsistent statement can be admitted as substantive evidence when it was made under oath and the declarant is subject to cross-examination about it. Under this rule, if a witness testifies at trial and had earlier given a sworn statement (for example, in a deposition or sworn interview) that contradicts their current testimony, that prior statement may be admitted to prove the truth of the matter, not merely to impeach. The oath and opportunity to cross-examine bolster the reliability of the earlier declaration, which is why it can be used as substantive evidence. If the statement hadn’t been under oath, it would typically be limited to impeachment rather than substantive evidence, which is why the specific scenario described supports admissibility.

A prior inconsistent statement can be admitted as substantive evidence when it was made under oath and the declarant is subject to cross-examination about it. Under this rule, if a witness testifies at trial and had earlier given a sworn statement (for example, in a deposition or sworn interview) that contradicts their current testimony, that prior statement may be admitted to prove the truth of the matter, not merely to impeach. The oath and opportunity to cross-examine bolster the reliability of the earlier declaration, which is why it can be used as substantive evidence. If the statement hadn’t been under oath, it would typically be limited to impeachment rather than substantive evidence, which is why the specific scenario described supports admissibility.