Receiving the Most Out of Prior Inconsistent Statements

It feels seriously great to catch a person lying on the witness stand. It can flip a complete trial all-around. But it seldom takes place by accident. The secret is to have fantastic timing aided by diligent preparation, even when you have a witness lifeless to legal rights.

A couple of many years ago, I was prosecuting a domestic violence case involving a woman perpetrator and a male target. The victim’s spouse had beaten him up and then trashed the residence, throwing garments and dishes everywhere. The spouse called 911 and described that his wife hit him and that she was destroying their home. The get in touch with – like all 911 calls – was recorded.

Soon after his spouse was charged with domestic violence, even so, his all-natural allegiance to her made him improve his story. So at her domestic violence demo, the husband mentioned on immediate that his spouse did not basically hit him and that she was generally tranquil that evening. Very little did he know, but I had his 911 connect with all cued up and ready to play for the jury on a king-sized increase box appropriate below my table. I also experienced a transcript of the tape prepared to hand to the defendant’s attorney and to the decide and jury.

The difficult aspect was to obtain a way to engage in the tape without offering the defendant an chance to explain it away. The night time just before the trial commenced, I meditated on the problem for quite a few hrs, likely above and about particularly how the second would engage in out. I resolved to utilize a seemingly innocuous system recognised as “earlier recollection refreshed,” discovered at Proof Code §771. That is, right after obtaining him to firmly dedicate to his testimony that his spouse by no means hit him and that she did not trash the dwelling, I nonchalantly requested him if he recalled the correct material of his 911 call. Of training course, the response was “no.” Now I experienced him.

I questioned him if it would refresh his recollection to hear the tape and he of study course stated “of course,” due to the fact he did not want the jury to assume that he experienced a little something to cover.

So I handed transcripts of the 911 contact to the defendant’s legal professional and to the decide and jury. Up coming, I reached below my desk and created the boom box and pressed “engage in.” Bingo. There it was in stereo.

The spouse plainly advised the 911 dispatcher that his spouse was beating him with her fists and that she was throwing outfits and dishes everywhere you go. The jury was surprised. The witness was uncovered as a liar. The circumstance ended with the wife’s conviction, and the husband’s spectacular prior inconsistent statement was the centerpiece of the trial.

Prior inconsistent statements can be devastating. From a specialized standpoint, they are exceptions to the rumour rule. They are ruled by Evidence Code §1235, which gives: “Proof of a statement produced by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the assertion is inconsistent with his testimony at the listening to and is made available in compliance with Portion 770.”

The thrust of Proof Code §770 is that the witness will have to have an chance to explain the prior inconsistent statement, i.e., the witness must not previously be excused, except “the passions of justice” demand or else.

Of specific importance is the truth that prior inconsistent statements are admissible not only to impeach the witness, but for the fact of the assertion itself. People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 43, 55. That can change out to be a powerful advantage, for the reason that you can use the prior inconsistent assertion as affirmative proof in your closing argument. For instance, using the previously mentioned domestic violence circumstance as an illustration: “Females and gentlemen of the jury, the proof proves over and above a fair doubt that she strike him. You read it for yourselves. Her spouse unequivocally explained to the 911 dispatcher that she hit him.”

Community coverage is in favor of admitting prior inconsistent statements. The remarks to Proof Code §770 condition that a occasion may introduce a prior inconsistent statement even just after the witness has been excused if the party learns of the assertion right after the witness was excused. That assertion looks to point out a need to admit these kinds of evidence mainly because the prior statement was most likely the fact, as a substitute of the afterwards statement, which was possibly rehearsed.

In opposition to summary judgment motions, prior inconsistent statements are admissible for their truth and consequently may perhaps develop triable troubles of point, even although the witness was not supplied an opportunity to demonstrate the statement. Colarossi v. Coty U.S. Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1150. The Fourth District Court docket of Attractiveness stated that there was no motive for demanding that the witness be specified an possibility to reveal the inconsistency in the summary judgment context. After all, the motive for the need is to permit the trier of point to evaluate trustworthiness. But on summary judgment, only the choose will watch the evidence. The jury would need to evaluate the witness’ reliability in mild of the prior-inconsistent statement, and its mere existence in and of by itself would for that reason defeat summary judgment (assuming the issue was material).

Customarily, when a witness testified that he or she could not recall an celebration, the witness’ prior description of the party was inadmissible. See, e.g., Individuals v. Sam (1969) 71 Cal.2d 194. The purpose presented was that a current failure to recall at trial was not inconsistent with excellent recollection on a prior celebration.

But modernly, courts have absent the other way. The modern-day trend has been to enable prior descriptions of an party, even when a witness testifies that they can’t recall the occasion, because the failure to recall at demo seems deliberate or evasive. See, e.g., Individuals v. O’Quinn, (1980) 109 Cal.Application.3d 219, 224. But there are restrictions. Regardless of the craze to broaden the exception in favor of admissibility, the general public policy in favor of different dispute resolution, for example, has proved to be paramount. Therefore, inconsistent statements produced in prior arbitrations are inadmissible in afterwards trials of the very same scenario. Policies of Ct., rule 1616, subd. (c).

Attorneys have regarded for hundreds of many years that prior-inconsistent statements are dynamite. That is why Francis Wellman’s renowned get the job done The Art of Cross-Assessment, 1st revealed in 1903, devotes dozens of pages to the topic: “[W]hen you have a witness less than oath, who is orally contradicting a assertion he has formerly made, . . . you then have him rapidly on the hook.” Id. at p. 132.

More From My Blog