A positive or direct contradiction between the testimony at the trial or proceeding and a prior statement is not required to make the prior statement "inconsistent" for purposes of the hearsay exemption created by Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) or by a comparable State rule. It is sufficient if there is a disparity between the two statements such that a reasonable person might question the credibility of the person who made them.

United States v. Wallace, 848 F.2d 1464, 1473 (9th Cir. 1988) ( footnotes omitted from the following statement by the court:"Additionally, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the heroin conviction under the criteria of Rule 609(a). In balancing the probative value...A specific act of a witness sometimes may be used to impeach a witness, but if the act to be used for impeachment is similar to an act at issue in the trial, the risk of undue prejudice may increase and the trial court may therefore have more reason to exclude the impeaching act as unduly prejudicial.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315-316 (1979) ("The constitutional standard recognized in the Winship case was expressly phrased as one that protects an accused against a conviction except on '_proof_ beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .' In subsequent cases discussing the reasonable-doubt standard, we...In a criminal trial the government's burden of persuasion is to establish a criminal defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a federal constitutional requirement that is applicable to the states as well to the federal government.

Fed. R. Evid. 408 ("... (b) Permitted uses.--This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or...Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, settlements, settlement offers, and settlement negotiations are admissible if they are offered for other purposes.