Question

The witness in a burglary case testified at a pretrial hearing under oath and subject to penalty of perjury that he saw the defendant in a yellow satin jumpsuit near the location of the burglary. The victim thought she saw a person who was wearing a yellow satin jumpsuit leaving her house before sh discovered the burglary. At trial, the witness who had previously testified that he saw the defendant in a yellow satin jumpsuit, now states that the person he saw near the location of the burglary was wearing a blue shirt and white jeans. Would the prosecution be able to use the prior statement for its truth and not just for impeachment?

a) Yes, because the declarant is considered an agent of the victim.
b) Yes, because the former testimony is not hearsay under the rules. It is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony, and was given under oath at a pretrial hearing.
c) No, because the statement is hearsay.
d) No, because the statement is not offered by the opponent.

Answer 1

Correct Answer:

b) Yes, because the former testimony is not hearsay under the rules. It is inconsistent with the witness's present testimony, and was given under oath at a pretrial hearing.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the trial regarding to the bulgary proof, the persecution team would use the first statement for its truth due to the fact that, the witness gave it under an oath and knowing fully well the consequences of lying during the pre-trial.

On the main trial, the witness could have been pressured or threatened before then to change his or her statement hence the reason why the statement changed about what was actually witnessed.