37. Is the testimony of the second witness admissible?

When a witness tells a story at trial, the opposing lawyer will often confront him with a previous out-of-court statement in which the witness told a different story. Such an impeachment use of an out-of-court statement is not hearsay because the out-of-court statement is introduced not for the purpose of showing that it contains the truth, but rather, to suggest that a witness who changes his story is not credible.

For the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness, a party may show that the witness has, on another occasion, made statements that are inconsistent with some material part of his present testimony. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), an inconsistent statement may be proved by either cross-examination or extrinsic evidence. To prove a statement by extrinsic evidence, certain requirements must first be met: (i) a proper foundation must be laid; and (ii) the statement must be relevant to some issue in the case (i.e., cannot be a collateral matter).

In most cases, prior inconsistent statements are hearsay, admissible only to impeach the witness. This is in contrast to the hearsay exemption for prior inconsistent statements, when the statement was made under oath at a prior trial, hearing, or another proceeding, or in a deposition, and may then be considered as substantive proof of the facts stated.

Regarding who may impeach a witness, FRE 607 states: «Any party, including the party that called the witness, may attack the witness's credibility» (emphasis added). Moreover, under FRE 806, parties may impeach a hearsay declarant in the same ways that would be permitted if the declarant were to testify. This is because a hearsay declarant is essentially a witness in the case.

C is correct. The testimony of the second witness is admissible, but only for the purpose of impeaching the first witness's testimony. Prior statements that are inconsistent with a witness's present testimony may be used to impeach the witness's credibility because they tend to show that the witness's trial testimony is not believable. Here, the prior inconsistent statement was not made under oath, so it does not fit the exemption to the hearsay rule provided by FRE 801(d)(1)(A). There is no other hearsay exception that is satisfied under the facts. Therefore, the statement is admissible only to impeach the witness and not for its truth.

A is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. FRE 607 specifically allows any party, including the party who called a witness, to impeach that witness's credibility. As explained above, this is a permissible use of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the first witness's credibility.

B is incorrect. The prior statement of the first witness would be considered hearsay only if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted — that the defendant was involved in the transaction. It is not hearsay if offered to impeach the witness whose trial testimony conflicts with it. This is because, whether true or not, the statement is probative to show that the witness is not credible; he said one thing at trial and had said something else previously.

D is incorrect. This answer is only partially correct. Although the statement is admissible to impeach the first witness, it is NOT admissible to prove the defendant's involvement. As explained above, this is proper impeachment material as a prior inconsistent statement. However, if offered to prove the defendant's involvement, i.e., for the truth of the matter asserted, it would be hearsay. No other exemption or exception to the hearsay rule applies to render it substantively admissible under the facts offered.