46. Is the witness's testimony in the perjury trial admissible?

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) define hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the current trial or hearing, offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). 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. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

Under the FRE 801(d)(2), a statement by an opposing party (traditionally known as an «admission by a party-opponent») is not hearsay. Under this Rule, when the opposing party's statement is offered against that same opposing party and was made in either an individual or representative capacity, it is admissible.

B is correct. This question requires analyzing two possible uses of the testimony: for purposes of impeachment, and as substantive evidence. As to impeachment, the rule is that using an out-of-court statement for impeachment is not hearsay because it is not being introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather, to show that the defendant's testimony is incredible. Thus, the witness's testimony is admissible to impeach the defendant's testimony. As to introducing the testimony as substantive evidence, the applicable rule is admissions by party-opponents, which exempts as non-hearsay statements made by a party offered against that party under FRE 801(d)(2)(A). Under this Rule, the witness's testimony is also admissible as substantive evidence to establish the defendant's guilt of perjury. Because these two exemptions apply, the witness's testimony is not hearsay for either purpose.

A is incorrect. The witness's testimony is admissible for impeachment; it may be used to show that the defendant is not credible. However, it is also admissible as substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt as an admission by a party-opponent under FRE 801(d)(2).

C is incorrect. The witness's testimony is not hearsay, and therefore no exception is necessary. It is considered non-hearsay under two different exemptions: as impeachment and as an admission by a party-opponent.

D is incorrect. The statement made to the witness does relate to the prior business fraud, but it is a statement by the defendant that in fact, he did know about the fraud when he testified in two trials that he did not know of it. The statement is relevant to prove that the defendant's trial testimony was knowingly false and hence constituted perjury.