Prior inconsistent testimony given under oath may be used for impeachment and as substantive evidence.

Prior inconsistent testimony given under oath may be used for impeachment and as substantive evidence.

• A. Only for impeachment.
• B. For both impeachment and as substantive evidence.
• C. Only as substantive evidence.
• D. Not admissible.

Answer: (B)

The test hinges on how a prior inconsistent statement is treated when it was made under oath. A prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay when used to attack credibility, so it can be admitted for impeachment. If that same sworn statement was given under oath in a prior proceeding or deposition, it also qualifies as substantive evidence to prove the truth of what was stated. In other words, the oath gives extra weight that allows the statement to stand as proof of the asserted facts, not just as a criticism of the witness’s current memory or honesty. That’s why this can be used both to impeach and as substantive evidence, making the best choice that it applies in both roles. If the prior statement wasn’t sworn, you’d still have impeachment, but not the substantive-use; and it isn’t excluded or limited to only one purpose.

The test hinges on how a prior inconsistent statement is treated when it was made under oath. A prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay when used to attack credibility, so it can be admitted for impeachment. If that same sworn statement was given under oath in a prior proceeding or deposition, it also qualifies as substantive evidence to prove the truth of what was stated. In other words, the oath gives extra weight that allows the statement to stand as proof of the asserted facts, not just as a criticism of the witness’s current memory or honesty. That’s why this can be used both to impeach and as substantive evidence, making the best choice that it applies in both roles. If the prior statement wasn’t sworn, you’d still have impeachment, but not the substantive-use; and it isn’t excluded or limited to only one purpose.