Rule 613: Prior Statements of Witnesses (2024)

FAQs

Rule 613: Prior Statements of Witnesses? ›

When examining a witness about the witness's prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party's attorney.

In the examination of a witness concerning a prior statement made by the witness, whether written or not, the court may require that the statement be shown or its contents disclosed to the witness at that time, and on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

613(b) in that extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is not admissible unless the statement is shown or disclosed to the witness during the witness's examination. Paragraph (b) is intended to give the witness and the party a fair opportunity to explain or deny the allegation.

Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement has three basic steps, which have been described in a number of ways. One of the most popular is the “three Cs,” confirm, credit, and confront. Alternatively, the three steps have been described as follows: repeat, build up, impeach.

Texas Rule 613

Impeachment can apply to written as well as oral statements. Rule 613 is applicable to impeachment of one's own witness as well as cross-examination. Federal and Texas Rules of Evidence similarly provide that a witness's credibility can be attacked by any party.

Extrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission') is adopting Rule 613 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act' or "Act') to require national securities exchanges and national securities associations ("self-regulatory organizations' or "SROs') to submit a national market system ("NMS') plan to ...

(2) 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 him thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require.

Generally, to be admissible, the evidence must be relevant) and not outweighed by countervailing considerations (e.g., the evidence is unfairly prejudicial, confusing, a waste of time, privileged, or, among other reasons, based on hearsay).

Norwood, 81 M.J. 12 (a prior consistent statement made out of court may not constitute hearsay, and thus can be admitted as substantive evidence, if certain threshold requirements are first met: (1) the declarant of the statement testifies at the court‑martial, (2) the declarant is subject to cross-examination, and (3) ...

Can a witness be impeached if he she has previously made statements that are inconsistent with what the witness said during direct ›

Under common law, a witness may be impeached by proof the witness has contradicted him- or herself through evidence of prior acts or statements that are inconsistent with testimony given on direct examination.

In federal court, Federal Rules of Evidence 607 provides that any party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence that reflects on the witness's character for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, bias, interest, or other reasons.

With respect to other witnesses, in addition to any prior conviction involving false statement or dishonesty, any other felony may be used to impeach if, and only if, the court finds that the probative value of such evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect against the party offering that witness.

The best evidence rule provides that the original documents must be provided as evidence, unless the original is lost, destroyed, or otherwise unobtainable.

In fact, the law says that a jury can convict someone based on the testimony of only one witness as long as the jury believes that witness beyond a reasonable doubt. This is known as the “one witness rule.” It means that, in theory, the testimony of only one witness can be enough to convict someone of a crime.

Under Federal Rule 801(d)(1)(A), prior inconsistent statements may be used for impeachment purposes, as well as substantive evidence, as long as the requirements of the rule have been satisfied: the statement was inconsistent with declarant's testimony and the statement was given under oath.

MRE 613 allows a party in a court-martial to call into question a witness's testimony by introducing evidence of a “prior inconsistent statement” they made.

Rule 613 states that when a party examines a witness about a prior statement made by the witness (written or otherwise), the party is not required to show the statement to the witness while asking questions about it. G.S. 8C-613. The party must, however, show the statement to the opposing party if requested.

A witness's own prior oral and written statements are usually hearsay. However, under Rule 801(d)(1), if the witness-declarant testifies and is available for cross-examination concerning the prior statement, the declarant's own statements are non-hearsay in three narrowly defined situations.

R. 613 ("Under principles of expression unius the rule does not apply to impeachment by evidence of prior inconsistent conduct. ''). Because no rule prohibits such impeachment, this type of evidence is admissible under Evid.