Rule 613. Impeachment with Prior Statements

Rule 613. Prior statements of witnesses

Representing Guilty Clients: How do defense lawyers sleep at night?

1. Examining witness concerning prior statement. In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown nor its contents disclosed to him at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.
2. Extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement of witness. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to
   explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate the witnessthereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in MRE 801(d)(2).

1. Evidence that on a previous occasion a witness made a statement inconsistent
   with his or her present testimony is “probably the most effective and most
   frequently employed” attack on witness credibility. Saying one thing on the
   stand and something different previously raises a doubt as to the truthfulness of
   both statements. A prior inconsistent statement (PIS) casts doubt on the general
   credibility of the declarant. Such evidence is considered only for purposes of
   credibility, not to establish the truth of the contents (avoiding a hearsay issue).
   Thus, a limiting instruction would be appropriate.
2. A witness may be impeached with competent evidence to show that he or she
   made a previous statement, oral or written, inconsistent with his or her in-court
   testimony. The evidence may be:
   1. Intrinsic: controlled by 613(a), involving interrogation of the witness
      concerning the prior statement, or
   2. Extrinsic: controlled by 613(b), involving extrinsic proof (testimony or
      documents) of the inconsistent statement.
3. Impeachment, however, is not the only possible use of a prior inconsistent
   statement. Pursuant 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 when three requirements are
   met: The statement is inconsistent with the declarant’s 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.

Military Sexual Assault Defenses: Mistake of Fact Explained by a Military Defense Lawyer