What is impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, and what foundation is typically required?

• A. It is challenging the witness by showing prior statements inconsistent with their testimony; foundation includes showing there was a prior statement and allowing the witness to explain or deny.
• B. It is simply noting that a witness sometimes changes their opinion.
• C. It involves presenting a statement that is consistent with testimony.
• D. It requires the prior statement to be read aloud in court.

Answer: (A)

Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement is a way to attack a witness’s credibility by showing they once said something different from what they’re saying now. The purpose isn’t to prove the prior statement’s truth, but to cast doubt on the witness’s reliability because their account has changed.

The typical foundation is twofold: first, establish that the witness made a prior statement that is inconsistent with their current testimony; second, give the witness an opportunity to explain or deny that inconsistency. In many settings you also show the prior statement to the witness or read it to them, but the essential idea is the inconsistency and the chance to respond.

Other choices miss the mark because changing opinions isn’t the same as a sworn prior statement; presenting a statement that agrees with testimony wouldn’t impeach; and requiring the prior statement to be read aloud is not the defining foundation used in most contexts.