Also known as: inconsistent statement · prior inconsistent statement · prior inconsistent statements · impeachment by prior inconsistent statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A prior statement by a witness that conflicts with the witness's current testimony. Such statements may be used to attack the witness's credibility, subject to foundational requirements such as an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Idina Iverson sued Imperial Motors after a car accident. During settlement talks, an Imperial representative admitted fault and offered payment. At trial, Imperial called a witness who denied fault. Iverson tried to introduce the representative's negotiation statement as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach. The court excluded the statement because it arose during compromise negotiations.
Ian Iverson testified at trial that he never received a warning letter from Infinity Bank. The bank sought to introduce an email Ian had written months earlier stating he had received the letter. Counsel offered the email without first asking Ian about it on the stand. The court excluded the email because Ian had not been given an opportunity to explain or deny the inconsistency.
Ines Ibarra offered a hearsay statement from a former employee of Icarus Aviation describing unsafe maintenance practices. Icarus then sought to introduce the employee's earlier written statement contradicting the hearsay account. The employee was unavailable to testify. The court admitted the inconsistent statement to attack the declarant's credibility even though the employee had never been confronted with it.
Iris Irons was charged with theft and took the stand denying involvement. The prosecutor introduced statements Irons had made to police before trial that placed her at the scene. Irons objected that the statements were obtained without proper warnings. The court allowed the statements solely to impeach her credibility on the stand.
Imran Iyer entered plea discussions and made statements about his role in a drug transaction. He later went to trial and testified that he had no knowledge of the drugs. The government cross-examined him with the earlier statements after he had agreed they could be used if he testified inconsistently. The court permitted the impeachment because Iyer had waived the usual protections.
Isabella Ingram testified at a preliminary hearing that she saw the defendant commit the robbery. At trial she gave a different account. The prosecution offered the preliminary hearing transcript to show the inconsistency. The court evaluated whether the earlier opportunity for cross-examination satisfied confrontation requirements before admitting the transcript for impeachment.
Extrinsic evidence may be introduced only after the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party has an opportunity to examine the witness about it. The rule does not apply to opposing party statements under Rule 801(d)(2).
Supporting sources
Yes. When a hearsay statement is admitted, the declarant's credibility may be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified, including inconsistent statements, regardless of timing or opportunity to explain.
…Green's 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 .…
…and the prosecution here did no more than utilize the traditional truth-testing devices of the adversary process.[^maj-2] Had inconsistent statements been made by the accused to some third person, it could hardly be contended that the conflict could not be laid before the jury by way of cross-examination and
…788 F.2d 210, 219-20 (4th Cir.) (government permitted to impeach witness’s trial testimony by introducing into evidence her prior inconsistent statements
…officer contained methamphetamine. Over defense counsel's objection, the prosecutor cross-examined respondent about the inconsistent statements
…chief. After the State rested, the defendant recalled Carroll to lay a foundation for potential impeachment
Supporting sources
Yes. Evidence of conduct or statements made during compromise negotiations is not admissible to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction when offered to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim.
Supporting sources
Yes. A defendant who testifies may be impeached with prior inconsistent statements even if those statements were obtained without Miranda warnings, because the privilege against self-incrimination does not include a right to commit perjury.
Supporting sources
Yes. A defendant may waive the protections of the plea-negotiation rules and agree that statements made during those discussions may be used to impeach inconsistent trial testimony.
Supporting sources