33. How should the court rule with respect to this offered testimony?

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). Correctly classifying a statement as hearsay or non-hearsay is half the battle. The other half is determining whether some exception to the hearsay rule applies (i.e., the statement is hearsay because it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, however, it is nevertheless admissible pursuant to a specific exception).

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 a use of an out-of-court statement (for impeachment) 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 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).

Generally, extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if: (i) the witness is, at some point, given an opportunity to explain or deny the allegedly inconsistent statement; and (ii) the adverse party is, at some point, given an opportunity to examine the witness about the statement.

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 other proceeding, or in a deposition, and may then be considered as substantive proof of the facts stated.

A is correct. In this case, when the amusement company called the first witness, the bystander was a hearsay declarant whose statement was likely admitted as an excited utterance or present sense impression. For that reason, the first witness can testify to the out-of-court statement, «That crazy fool is standing up in the car.» The student's later witness, looking to testify to the bystander's second statement from the following day that the ride «just threw the guy out of his seat,» however, would be inadmissible hearsay. No hearsay exception applies to the later statement by the bystander that would allow it to be admitted substantively. The statement is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the bystander, however. It contradicts the bystander's earlier statement, which suggested that the student was entirely at fault by standing up in the car. FRE 806 provides that a hearsay declarant's credibility may be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness.

B is incorrect. This answer is only partially correct. The second statement is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach the bystander's earlier statement, but may not be admitted substantively. It would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of what it asserts about the cause of the accident. Because no other exception to the hearsay rule applies, the statement should not be admitted substantively to prove the amusement company's negligence.

C is incorrect. When a witness is impeached with a prior inconsistent statement, FRE 613 provides that the witness must be afforded an opportunity to explain or deny it. However, the bystander was not a witness and never took the stand. Instead, the bystander was a hearsay declarant, whose first statement, «That crazy fool is standing up in the car,» presumably was admitted as either an excited utterance or a present sense impression. FRE 806 provides that hearsay declarants generally may be impeached by the same methods used to impeach trial witnesses. However, FRE 806 contains one significant qualification: «The court may admit evidence of the declarant's inconsistent statement or conduct, regardless of when it occurred or whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it.»

D is incorrect. As explained above, it is true that the bystander was not a witness and never took the stand. As explained above, the bystander was a hearsay declarant, whose first statement, «That crazy fool is standing up in the car,» presumably was admitted as either an excited utterance or a present sense impression. FRE 806 provides that hearsay declarants generally may be impeached by the same methods used to impeach trial witnesses. The statement would thus be admissible to impeach the bystander as having made an inconsistent statement.