Prior Inconsistent Statements 801(d)(1)(A)
At trial, Witness says she never saw the shooter. At the grand jury, under oath, she identified defendant as the shooter.
Admissible substantively — prior inconsistent statement under oath at a proceeding.
Defense argues Witness fabricated her story to get a reward. Prosecution offers a statement she made before the reward was announced.
Admissible — prior consistent statement before alleged motive to fabricate.
Witness previously picked defendant out of a lineup but cannot remember now.
Admissible — 801(d)(1)(C), prior identification.
Defendant texted his friend: “I messed up — I torched the place.”
Admissible — 801(d)(2)(A) party’s own statement.
Defendant’s journal says, “I regret breaking into the warehouse.”
Admissible — 801(d)(2)(A) party’s own statement.
Witness denies remembering anything. Police report shows she told officers a different story. Statement was not under oath.
Hearsay if offered for truth; admissible only for impeachment (not 801(d)(1)(A)).
Defense attacks Witness’s memory (not motive). Prosecution offers earlier video of her giving a clear, consistent account.
Admissible under 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) — rehabilitation after attack on memory.
Witness gave a detailed written description of the suspect but made no identification.
Not admissible under 801(d)(1)(C) — description ≠ identification.
Police accuse defendant: “Your partner already said you robbed the bank.” Defendant stays silent though clearly understanding.
Possible adoptive admission — silence when a denial would be expected.
Witness testifies: “The foreman told us the machine was unsafe,” offered to prove the machine was unsafe.
Hearsay — foreman’s assertion offered for truth; not within 801(d)(2) unless employer is the party.
Witness previously testified at a civil deposition that the defendant ran the red light. At trial, she says she “isn’t sure.”
Admissible substantively — deposition counts as a proceeding under 801(d)(1)(A).
Witness is accused of lying because she hates the defendant. Her earlier statement was made after the feud began.
Not admissible — does not predate motive to fabricate.
Witness identified defendant in a photo array conducted by police. Defense objects hearsay.
Not hearsay — prior identification qualifies.
Company spokesperson tells media, “Our product failed due to our own oversight.”
Admissible — spokesperson authorized to speak for company.
Witness says co-worker told her, “The boss ordered us to dump toxic waste behind the building.” Boss is defendant.
Admissible — 801(d)(2)(D) if statement concerns matter within scope of employment.
Witness gave a televised interview saying she saw defendant flee. At trial she denies it.
Hearsay if offered for truth — interviews are not “proceedings.”
Witness is accused of being coached by police. Prosecution offers statement she made minutes after the event, before police arrived.
Admissible — made before alleged improper influence.
Witness told friend in private, “That’s the guy who robbed me,” while pointing at defendant on the street.
Admissible — out-of-court identification counts even if informal.
Delivery driver, while working, tells injured customer, “Yeah, our brakes have been faulty for weeks.”
Admissible — employee statement within scope and during relationship.
Defendant’s lawyer, while negotiating with a reporter, states: “My client was distracted when he hit the pedestrian."
Answer: Admissible — 801(d)(2)(C) authorized representative.
Witness previously testified under oath at a probation revocation hearing contradicting her trial testimony.
Admissible — probation revocation hearing qualifies as a “proceeding.”
Defense challenges Witness’s credibility because she is inconsistent. Prosecution offers earlier consistent statement made at the station.
Admissible if used to rehabilitate after credibility attack — 801(d)(1)(B)(ii).
Witness previously failed to identify defendant in a lineup. Prosecution offers the failure as evidence.
Not admissible — failure to identify is not a “statement of identification.”
Co-conspirator texts the group chat: “Meet at the warehouse to package the stolen phones.”
Admissible — during and in furtherance of conspiracy.
Three conspirators are arrested. Hours later, one tells police: “We were all in on it together.”
Not admissible under 801(d)(2)(E) — conspiracy ended upon arrest.