Also known as: inconsistent statements · prior inconsistent statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statement previously made by a witness that conflicts with the witness's testimony at trial. The statement may be used to attack the witness's credibility when offered under the governing evidentiary rules.
Idina Iverson sued Ironclad Industries for breach of a supply contract. During settlement talks Ironclad offered a reduced payment to resolve the claim. At trial Idina sought to introduce the offer to show that Ironclad's later testimony denying any breach was false. The court excluded the evidence because statements made during compromise negotiations may not be used to impeach by prior inconsistent statement.
Ismael Ibrahim testified that he had never complained about brake defects on company vehicles. Integrity Partners then offered a radio log entry in which Ismael had earlier reported a brake complaint. The court excluded the log because Ismael had not first been given an opportunity to explain or deny the prior statement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Iris Irons offered a hearsay statement from a former employee who was unavailable at trial. Ironwood Capital responded with evidence that the employee had made an earlier inconsistent statement about the same events. The court admitted the inconsistent statement to attack the declarant's credibility even though the employee never testified and had no chance to explain.
Ian Iverson sued a news outlet for defamation. During discovery the plaintiff sought notes of editorial conversations that could reveal inconsistent statements by the defendant reporter. The court permitted the inquiry because such statements could be used to show actual malice.
Ingrid Innes entered a proffer agreement with prosecutors and made statements that later conflicted with her trial testimony. The government introduced the earlier statements after she took the stand. The court held that the agreement validly waived any objection to use of the inconsistent statements for impeachment.
Isaiah Ishikawa testified at trial in a manner that contradicted his earlier preliminary hearing testimony. The prosecution offered the prior testimony both to impeach and as substantive evidence. The court admitted the statement after finding it bore sufficient indicia of reliability.
Any party may attack the credibility of any witness, including one the party called. The prior statement may be used to show the inconsistency even if the party did not anticipate the change in testimony.
Extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible until the witness has been given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party has had a chance to examine the witness about it.
When a hearsay statement is admitted, the declarant's credibility may be attacked with any evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified, including inconsistent statements, regardless of timing or opportunity to explain.
Evidence of compromise offers and statements made during negotiations is inadmissible to impeach by prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.
A deposition may be used to contradict or impeach the deponent's live testimony without any showing that the witness is unavailable.
…precedential significance. We accept neither. In Part II of Green , the Court held that use of a trial witness' prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence did not, as a general rule, violate the Confrontation Clause. In Part III, the Court went further and held: "Porter's preliminary hearing testimony was admissible .…