Search
BROWSE SEARCH SPINDOC HELP

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.

Add Comment
Contributed in 2009 & last edited in 2009 by Peter Tillers
You've come to a rule . Check out the authorities below. When you find one you like, add it to your SpinDoc. more...
Please sign in or sign up to see the authorities.
Contribution Suggestions
complete authority for rule...
The privilege for confidential marital communications -- the marital secrets privilege -- is not waived or forfeited and the required...
vouch for authority for rule...
The routine practice of an organization is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 or a comparable State rule in order to show conduct on a...
vouch for authority for rule...
Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule if they are offered for any other purpose that does not require an inference...