How should one handle a scenario where a witness's prior statements contradict a later deposition while testifying?

• A. Ignore the prior statements and proceed.
• B. Admit the prior statements as substantive evidence.
• C. Use the prior statements to impeach, show contradictions, and allow the witness to explain or clarify; secure a proper foundation.
• D. Exclude all prior statements from consideration.

Answer: (C)

Impeachment through prior inconsistent statements is a standard way to test a witness’s credibility. When a witness’s earlier statement contradicts what they say later in deposition, you bring that contradiction to light on cross-examination and use it to question their reliability. The key is securing a proper foundation: establish that the prior statement exists, when and where it was made, and to whom, and show that the witness had an opportunity to explain or deny it. If the prior statement was given under oath (as with a deposition), it may also be admissible as substantive evidence, but the essential aim is to expose the inconsistency and let the witness explain or clarify. This process helps the jury weigh the truthfulness of the testimony and guards against misleading or conflicting narratives.