Not hearsay: a declarant witness's prior statement. Which rule?

Not hearsay: a declarant witness's prior statement. Which rule?

• A. Rule 801(d)(1)
• B. Rule 801(d)(2)
• C. Rule 803 (4)
• D. Rule 705

Answer: (A)

When a declarant-witness testifies, their prior statement can be admitted as not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1) if the statement was made before and the declarant is subject to cross-examination about it at trial. The prior statement is not offered for the truth of the matter as hearsay, but rather to show that the witness did or did not say something consistent or inconsistent with their current testimony, or to identify a person. So this rule covers three common forms: a prior statement that is inconsistent with the witness’s current testimony and was made under oath at a prior proceeding, a prior statement that is consistent with the current testimony and offered to rehabilitate the witness's credibility, and a prior identification of a person after perceiving them. The key is that the declarant must testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination about the statement. The other options don’t fit this scenario: a statement offered by a party-opponent is covered by a different rule, not the declarant-witness prior statement rule; a medical-treatment or diagnosis statement falls under a separate hearsay exception; and Rule 705 concerns an expert’s methods and underlying facts, not prior statements by a declarant-witness.

When a declarant-witness testifies, their prior statement can be admitted as not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1) if the statement was made before and the declarant is subject to cross-examination about it at trial. The prior statement is not offered for the truth of the matter as hearsay, but rather to show that the witness did or did not say something consistent or inconsistent with their current testimony, or to identify a person.

So this rule covers three common forms: a prior statement that is inconsistent with the witness’s current testimony and was made under oath at a prior proceeding, a prior statement that is consistent with the current testimony and offered to rehabilitate the witness's credibility, and a prior identification of a person after perceiving them. The key is that the declarant must testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination about the statement.

The other options don’t fit this scenario: a statement offered by a party-opponent is covered by a different rule, not the declarant-witness prior statement rule; a medical-treatment or diagnosis statement falls under a separate hearsay exception; and Rule 705 concerns an expert’s methods and underlying facts, not prior statements by a declarant-witness.