🦅
Federal Evidence • Witness Impeachment
EVID#097
Legal Definition
A witness can be impeached by prior inconsistent statements, which are admissible both to impeach and as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Plain English Explanation
In California, if a witness has said something different before, this can be used both to question their honesty and as actual evidence in a case. This is allowed unless the U.S. Constitution or the judge decides it shouldn't be used. It doesn't matter if the previous statement was made under oath or not.
In contrast, under Federal rules, such statements from the past are only used as evidence if they were made under oath.
Also, note that in both California and under federal rules, evidence showing the witness said something different before can only be used if the witness gets a chance to respond to or deny it in court, or if they are not excused from answering.
In contrast, under Federal rules, such statements from the past are only used as evidence if they were made under oath.
Also, note that in both California and under federal rules, evidence showing the witness said something different before can only be used if the witness gets a chance to respond to or deny it in court, or if they are not excused from answering.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: During a trial in California, Sam testifies that he never saw Bob commit a crime. However, there is a recorded interview where Sam stated he did see Bob committing the crime. The prosecutor presents this interview as evidence. Result: In California, Sam's prior inconsistent statement is used not only to question his credibility but also as evidence against Bob, regardless of whether Sam's statement in the interview was under oath.
Hypo 2: In a federal court, Bob testifies that he was at work during a robbery. However, during a deposition for another case, he had stated under oath that he was near the crime scene. The opposing lawyer brings up this deposition. Result: Under the FRE, since Bob's prior inconsistent statement was made under oath, it can be used as evidence to show he might have been involved in the robbery.
Hypo 3: In a California courtroom, Amy testifies that she had never met George. An email is found where Amy wrote about meeting George, but it was not made under oath. The defense attorney presents this email. Result: In California, Amy's email can be used both to question her honesty and as evidence that she did know George, regardless of it not being under oath.
Hypo 4: In a federal trial, Sam claims he never owned a specific piece of artwork. However, there's a video of a public interview where Sam boasts about owning that artwork. The interview was not under oath. Result: Since the statement wasn't made under oath, it can only be used to question Sam's credibility in the federal court, not as substantive evidence.
Hypo 2: In a federal court, Bob testifies that he was at work during a robbery. However, during a deposition for another case, he had stated under oath that he was near the crime scene. The opposing lawyer brings up this deposition. Result: Under the FRE, since Bob's prior inconsistent statement was made under oath, it can be used as evidence to show he might have been involved in the robbery.
Hypo 3: In a California courtroom, Amy testifies that she had never met George. An email is found where Amy wrote about meeting George, but it was not made under oath. The defense attorney presents this email. Result: In California, Amy's email can be used both to question her honesty and as evidence that she did know George, regardless of it not being under oath.
Hypo 4: In a federal trial, Sam claims he never owned a specific piece of artwork. However, there's a video of a public interview where Sam boasts about owning that artwork. The interview was not under oath. Result: Since the statement wasn't made under oath, it can only be used to question Sam's credibility in the federal court, not as substantive evidence.
Related Concepts
How may a witness be <impeached>?
In California, how may a witness be impeached?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to evidence of character for untruthfulness?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to prior inconsistent statements?
When attempting to impeach a witness, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to felony convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to misdemeanor convictions?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence related to specific instances of conduct and prior bad acts?
When attempting to impeach a witness in California, how do courts handle the admissibility of evidence under Proposition 8?
