Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)EvidenceMedium
In a civil trial for defamation, the plaintiff's attorney calls a witness to testify about a conversation she had with the defendant. During cross-examination, the defendant's attorney attempts to introduce a prior inconsistent statement made by the witness in a sworn deposition, where she denied ever having such a conversation. The plaintiff's attorney objects. How should the court rule regarding the admissibility of the prior inconsistent statement?
- ASustained, because the prior inconsistent statement is hearsay.
- BSustained, because the witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement before its introduction.
- COverruled, because the prior inconsistent statement is admissible to impeach the witness's credibility.
- DOverruled, provided the statement was made under oath and subject to cross-examination, it can also be offered for its truth.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. Overruled, because the prior inconsistent statement is admissible to impeach the witness's credibility.
Prior inconsistent statements are generally admissible to impeach a witness's credibility. While the witness must usually be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, this can occur before or after its introduction.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Prior inconsistent statements used for impeachment are generally not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the witness's lack of credibility.
- B. While the witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement, this opportunity does not necessarily have to occur before the statement's introduction. The opportunity can be provided later.
- D. For a prior inconsistent statement to be admissible for its truth, it must generally have been made under oath, subject to cross-examination, and be inconsistent with the witness's current testimony, which is true here. However, the primary purpose of its introduction in this scenario is impeachment, not necessarily for its truth, though it could potentially serve both roles if the conditions are met.
Prior Inconsistent Statement (Impeachment)
A statement made by a witness, inconsistent with their current testimony, used to challenge their credibility.
- Admissible to impeach, not for its truth (unless made under oath and subject to cross-examination).
- Witness must be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
- Opposing party must also be given an opportunity to examine the witness about it.
Memory trick: Every witness has a CHIP on their shoulder if you wanna impeach 'em.