In a criminal proceeding, a statement described in 401(a)(3) or (4) may be admitted for perjury or false statement only if what condition is met?

In a criminal proceeding, a statement described in 401(a)(3) or (4) may be admitted for perjury or false statement only if what condition is met?

• A. The defendant made the statement under oath, on the record, with counsel present
• B. The statement was made in a different case
• C. The statement involves a different subject matter
• D. The defendant has waived all rights to counsel

Answer: (A)

This tests the condition for using a prior sworn statement to prove perjury or a false statement. A statement can be admitted for that purpose only if it was given under oath, on the record, with the opportunity for cross-examination (which in practice means the statement was made in a formal setting where penalties for perjury apply and where counsel could participate). The oath and the recorded setting ensure the statement carried the weight of perjury penalties and was subject to scrutiny, making it reliable enough to be used to prove that a later assertion is false. Why this fits better than other possibilities: if the statement wasn’t sworn and recorded, it lacks the formal oath and penalty backdrop that guard against false testimony. If it came from a different case or concerns a different subject matter, it wouldn’t directly support proving a perjury claim in the current proceeding. Waiving rights to counsel doesn’t supply the required oath-and-record foundation. The key concept is the prior sworn, record-backed nature of the statement.

This tests the condition for using a prior sworn statement to prove perjury or a false statement. A statement can be admitted for that purpose only if it was given under oath, on the record, with the opportunity for cross-examination (which in practice means the statement was made in a formal setting where penalties for perjury apply and where counsel could participate). The oath and the recorded setting ensure the statement carried the weight of perjury penalties and was subject to scrutiny, making it reliable enough to be used to prove that a later assertion is false.

Why this fits better than other possibilities: if the statement wasn’t sworn and recorded, it lacks the formal oath and penalty backdrop that guard against false testimony. If it came from a different case or concerns a different subject matter, it wouldn’t directly support proving a perjury claim in the current proceeding. Waiving rights to counsel doesn’t supply the required oath-and-record foundation. The key concept is the prior sworn, record-backed nature of the statement.