On cross-examination, an answer that is contrary to the witness statement may be impeached by the cross-examining attorney.

On cross-examination, an answer that is contrary to the witness statement may be impeached by the cross-examining attorney.

• A. The cross-examining attorney may impeach only if the answer is identical to the written statement.
• B. The cross-examining attorney may impeach the witness for any inconsistent statement.
• C. The cross-examining attorney may impeach the witness only for conduct crimes.
• D. An answer which is contrary to the witness statement may be impeached by the cross-examining attorney.

Answer: (D)

Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements is what this tests. On cross-examination, you can challenge a witness’s credibility by pointing to statements they made earlier that conflict with what they’re saying now. The act of contradicting the witness’s current testimony with a prior statement is itself a valid way to impeach, showing that the witness’s memory or truthfulness may be unreliable. This doesn’t require the prior statement to match some written document exactly; what matters is the inconsistency with the witness’s current testimony, and you’re typically allowed to confront the witness with that prior statement and, if appropriate, introduce additional evidence of the inconsistency. For example, if the witness says they were at home, but previously told someone they were at the store, that contradiction can be used to undermine their credibility. The other options miss the essence: impeachment isn’t limited to statements identical to a written document; it isn’t limited to conduct crimes, and it isn’t correctly described as requiring only a specific kind of statement.

Impeachment by prior inconsistent statements is what this tests. On cross-examination, you can challenge a witness’s credibility by pointing to statements they made earlier that conflict with what they’re saying now. The act of contradicting the witness’s current testimony with a prior statement is itself a valid way to impeach, showing that the witness’s memory or truthfulness may be unreliable. This doesn’t require the prior statement to match some written document exactly; what matters is the inconsistency with the witness’s current testimony, and you’re typically allowed to confront the witness with that prior statement and, if appropriate, introduce additional evidence of the inconsistency. For example, if the witness says they were at home, but previously told someone they were at the store, that contradiction can be used to undermine their credibility.

The other options miss the essence: impeachment isn’t limited to statements identical to a written document; it isn’t limited to conduct crimes, and it isn’t correctly described as requiring only a specific kind of statement.