Also known as: FRE 801(d)(1)(A) · Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) · 801(d)(1)(A) · prior inconsistent statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule that treats as nonhearsay a witness's prior inconsistent statement given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition.
Margaret testified at trial that Republic Build approved extra work orders through its site supervisor. Republic Build offered excerpts from her earlier deposition in which she expressed uncertainty about who gave the approvals. The excerpts were admitted to show the inconsistency under the rule.
The dispatcher testified at trial that she had never reported Colby's brake complaint. Vanessa sought to introduce the dispatcher's earlier deposition testimony stating the opposite under oath. The court admitted the deposition excerpt as nonhearsay after the witness had an opportunity to explain.
Dawson testified at trial that he never saw Reed restrained on the floor. Reed's counsel played a portion of Dawson's deposition in which he stated that he watched Reed held face-down for several minutes. The deposition excerpt was offered solely to show the inconsistency.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A witness testified at trial in a manner inconsistent with his earlier testimony at a preliminary hearing. The prosecution offered the prior testimony under oath to contradict the current account. The court admitted the statement as nonhearsay.
After receiving Miranda warnings the defendant remained silent during police questioning. At a subsequent hearing the defendant gave sworn testimony describing events. The prosecution offered the defendant's prior sworn statement at the hearing to contradict the later account.
A defense investigator prepared notes of an interview with a potential witness. At trial the witness gave testimony inconsistent with his earlier deposition. The prosecution offered the deposition transcript to show the inconsistency under the rule.
The statement must have been given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition. It must also be inconsistent with the witness's current testimony and the witness must be subject to cross-examination.
Yes. Any party may use a deposition to contradict or impeach the deponent's trial testimony provided the ordinary evidentiary requirements are met. The rule does not require unavailability for impeachment use.
No. The rule permits extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement after the witness has an opportunity to explain or deny it. The court may order otherwise in appropriate circumstances.
…as well. He objects to the introduction of the testimony of his Pretrial Services Officer concerning a defense witness’s alleged prior inconsistent statement on the ground that pretrial services information is rendered confidential by 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1) (1982). Stevens also protests the extent to which the district court, applying our…