Prior Inconsistent Statements Are Admissible to Impeach and Prior Consistent

Question

Examlex · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Evidence introduced for impeachment and rehabilitation cannot be considered as evidence that the crime was committed or that the defendant is guilty.The jury is instructed that the statements should be used for the sole purpose of evaluating the credibility of the witness.This is particularly confusing when prior inconsistent statements introduced during cross-examination are followed by prior consistent statements during re-direct examination.Even more complexity is introduced, as far as jurors are concerned, when another witness is called to establish the prior statements.The jury may lose sight of relevant evidence that can be used to convict.
An attorney should carefully evaluate potential impact prior to introducing either prior inconsistent or prior consistent statements.The risk of confusion may outweigh the impact of impeachment or rehabilitation if only minor discrepancies are involved.On the other hand, if the statements relate to a crucial fact, it may be worth the risk of confusing the jury.

Prior Inconsistent Statements Are Admissible to Impeach and Prior Consistent

Definitions: