Under Rule 613, extrinsic evidence of a witness's inconsistent statement is admissible under which conditions?

Under Rule 613, extrinsic evidence of a witness's inconsistent statement is admissible under which conditions?

• A. Extrinsic evidence of a witness's inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given opportunity to explain/deny statement and adverse party is given opportunity to ask questions, OR if justice so requires. Does not apply to statements under 801(d)(2).
• B. Extrinsic evidence of inconsistent statements is admissible even if the witness is not given any opportunity to explain or deny.
• C. Extrinsic evidence is never admissible for inconsistent statements.
• D. Extrinsic evidence of inconsistent statements is admissible only if the prior statement was made under oath.

Answer: (A)

Rule 613 governs impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is allowed only if the witness has had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposing party has had an opportunity to question the witness about it, or the court determines that justice requires admitting it anyway. This fairness safeguard ensures the witness isn’t trapped by a document they haven’t had a chance to discuss, and it preserves the integrity of cross-examination. The rule also recognizes a practical exception for statements that fall under the 801(d)(2) category (statements by an opposing party) because those are admitted as non-hearsay for substantive purposes anyway, so the usual restrictions on using extrinsic evidence to impeach don’t apply in the same way.

Rule 613 governs impeachment by prior inconsistent statements. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is allowed only if the witness has had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposing party has had an opportunity to question the witness about it, or the court determines that justice requires admitting it anyway. This fairness safeguard ensures the witness isn’t trapped by a document they haven’t had a chance to discuss, and it preserves the integrity of cross-examination.

The rule also recognizes a practical exception for statements that fall under the 801(d)(2) category (statements by an opposing party) because those are admitted as non-hearsay for substantive purposes anyway, so the usual restrictions on using extrinsic evidence to impeach don’t apply in the same way.