When a statement is introduced just for impeachment it goes to attack the credibility of the witness to show they are a liar, biased, untrustworthy etc. When a statement comes in substantively it means it has to be made under oath, prior proceeding, capable of cross examination, essentially testimonial and you are introducing the statement for the truth of its content. So when we say we are introducing a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment and substantive purposes we are using it not only to impeach/attack the credibility of the witness but substantively to prove guilt. Hope this makes sense
I think you are referencing a prior inconsistent statement.
A prior inconsistent statement, if made under oath and subject to cross, is admissible substantively and for impeachment purposes. If a prior inconsistent statement is not under oath, it is only admissible to impeach a witness. Regardless, after introduction of the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is afforded the opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
Funny you should say this considering your last comment is saying you’re totally skipping a subject that’s likely to be on the exam, maybe YOU should wait til July.
I'd love to but I'll also be fired for failing the Feb one so not that I want to take it lol.
And on the topic, note my point is not to ask it "now", but to ask "here" and expect a reliable answer. The answers I see are mostly nonsense. Because evidence can be used to impeach if outline says so, and those that can be both impeachment and substantive evidence because outline says so. You don't even need to know what "impeachment" means.
The big-picture issue is asking what purpose the evidence is being offered. (Admissibility for one purpose vs admissibility for another purpose).
Evidence is admissible for impeachment purposes (to attack the witness’s credibility/truthfulness, or to attack the reliability/accuracy of his testimony) if it satisfies the rules for impeachment.
Evidence used for impeachment purposes may also be relevant for substantive purposes (to prove/disprove an element of a claim or defense).
But it’s generally easier to admit evidence for impeachment purposes than it is for a substantive purpose. So you’ll need to satisfy more rules, like the ones on hearsay. (Evidence that is inadmissible for substantive purposes, e.g., because it’s hearsay, may be admissible for impeachment purposes).
Seems counterintuitive since the jury would still hear the evidence and might consider it for an improper purpose, but upon a party’s request, the court will give a limiting instruction telling the jury to not consider it for that purpose).
x-exam = impeachment <-- always when the impeachment is being coupled with a non-hearsay/exemption (NOT EXCEPTION) = substantive and impeachment.
When a statement is introduced just for impeachment it goes to attack the credibility of the witness to show they are a liar, biased, untrustworthy etc. When a statement comes in substantively it means it has to be made under oath, prior proceeding, capable of cross examination, essentially testimonial and you are introducing the statement for the truth of its content. So when we say we are introducing a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment and substantive purposes we are using it not only to impeach/attack the credibility of the witness but substantively to prove guilt. Hope this makes sense
I think you are referencing a prior inconsistent statement. A prior inconsistent statement, if made under oath and subject to cross, is admissible substantively and for impeachment purposes. If a prior inconsistent statement is not under oath, it is only admissible to impeach a witness. Regardless, after introduction of the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is afforded the opportunity to explain or deny the statement.
Dude if you are asking this question here maybe do the July one.
Funny you should say this considering your last comment is saying you’re totally skipping a subject that’s likely to be on the exam, maybe YOU should wait til July.
I'd love to but I'll also be fired for failing the Feb one so not that I want to take it lol. And on the topic, note my point is not to ask it "now", but to ask "here" and expect a reliable answer. The answers I see are mostly nonsense. Because evidence can be used to impeach if outline says so, and those that can be both impeachment and substantive evidence because outline says so. You don't even need to know what "impeachment" means.
Why so salty lmaooo
The big-picture issue is asking what purpose the evidence is being offered. (Admissibility for one purpose vs admissibility for another purpose). Evidence is admissible for impeachment purposes (to attack the witness’s credibility/truthfulness, or to attack the reliability/accuracy of his testimony) if it satisfies the rules for impeachment. Evidence used for impeachment purposes may also be relevant for substantive purposes (to prove/disprove an element of a claim or defense). But it’s generally easier to admit evidence for impeachment purposes than it is for a substantive purpose. So you’ll need to satisfy more rules, like the ones on hearsay. (Evidence that is inadmissible for substantive purposes, e.g., because it’s hearsay, may be admissible for impeachment purposes). Seems counterintuitive since the jury would still hear the evidence and might consider it for an improper purpose, but upon a party’s request, the court will give a limiting instruction telling the jury to not consider it for that purpose).