Under 801(D)(1), which statement is true?

Under 801(D)(1), which statement is true?

• A. They may be used only for impeachment and not as substantive evidence.
• B. They are admissible only if the declarant testifies and is cross-examined about the prior statement.
• C. They must be made under oath in a prior proceeding.
• D. They require the prior statement to be in writing.

Answer: (B)

Under 801(d)(1), a prior statement by a witness that they make while testifying and subject to cross-examination about that statement is not hearsay and can be used as substantive evidence. The key requirement is that the declarant actually testifies at the current proceeding and is cross-examined about the prior statement. If the declarant does not testify, the prior statement typically can’t be used under this rule, even though it might be relevant for other purposes. This is why the correct option emphasizes that admissibility hinges on the declarant’s on‑the‑stand testimony and cross-examination about the prior statement. The other choices misstate the scope: these statements aren’t limited to impeachment and can be substantive evidence; they don’t always have to have been made under oath in a prior proceeding (that oath condition applies to specific subparts); and the statement need not be in writing.

Under 801(d)(1), a prior statement by a witness that they make while testifying and subject to cross-examination about that statement is not hearsay and can be used as substantive evidence. The key requirement is that the declarant actually testifies at the current proceeding and is cross-examined about the prior statement. If the declarant does not testify, the prior statement typically can’t be used under this rule, even though it might be relevant for other purposes. This is why the correct option emphasizes that admissibility hinges on the declarant’s on‑the‑stand testimony and cross-examination about the prior statement. The other choices misstate the scope: these statements aren’t limited to impeachment and can be substantive evidence; they don’t always have to have been made under oath in a prior proceeding (that oath condition applies to specific subparts); and the statement need not be in writing.