Sex assault court martial lawyer - Impeachment with Prior Statements
Evidence that on a prior occasion a witness made a statement inconsistent with his or her present testimony is perhaps the most effective and most frequently employed attack on witness credibility. Saying one thing on the stand and something different earlier creates a doubt as to the truthfulness of both statements. A prior inconsistent statement creates doubt on the general credibility of the declarant. Such evidence is considered only for purposes of credibility, not to prove the correctness of the contents (avoiding a hearsay issue). Thus, a limiting instruction would be appropriate.
A witness can be impeached with competent evidence to demonstrate that he or she made a previous statement, oral or written, inconsistent with his or her in-court testimony. Such evidence may be:
Intrinsic: controlled by 613(a), involving interrogation of the witness regarding the prior statement, or
Extrinsic: controlled by 613(b), involving extrinsic proof (testimony or documents) of the earlier inconsistent statement.
Impeachment, alone, is not the only possible use of a previous inconsistent statement. According to Rule 801(d)(1)(A), such statements are admissible substantively, and may be considered by the fact-finder for the truth of the matter asserted, as an exemption to the rule against hearsay if three requirements are met: The statement is inconsistent with the declarants testimony; the declarant made the statement under oath subject to the penalty of perjury; and the statement was made at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition.
Court Martial Lawyer Michael Waddington represents Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps servicemembers facing UCMJ actions.
Comments