Evidence question, please help! Forum

[lawschoolisfun2012]

.

[lawschoolisfun2012]

Is 613 extrinsic evidence ONLY offered to show inconsistency, and thus it never goes to substantive issues? BUMPPPPPPPP

[Mick Haller]

prior inconsistent statements can only be introduced to impeach, unless the "PIS" was made under oath at a formal proceeding. if made under oath, it can be introduced as substantive evidence.

[john@lestutor]

for 613(b), the rule states extrinsic evidence is only admissible.....blah blah. Anyways, Can someone use extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement for both substantive and impeachment purposes? Or is it ALWAYS, only impeach purposes?

My professor REALLY did not do a good job explaining this.

Thanks in advance!

One way to impeach is to introduce prior inconsistent statements (see Rule 613). THIS IS JUST TO IMPEACH!!!!!!!! KEEP READING FOR 801(d)
Rule 613. Witness’s Prior Statement
(a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney.
(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2).


Altohugh 613 above can be used to impeach and NOT for the truth, if you meet the elements below, you can even use it for the truth of the matter.
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:
(A) is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding or in a deposition;(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or
(C) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.


I hope that helped.
John

[lawschoolisfun2012]

AWESOME!!! THANK YOU!