Define: Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses

Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses
Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses
Quick Summary of Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses

Previous inconsistent statements of witnesses refer to statements made by witnesses in the past that contradict their current testimony in a legal proceeding. These statements may have been made in prior interviews, depositions, or court appearances related to the same case or matter. When introduced as evidence during cross-examination or impeachment, previous inconsistent statements can undermine the credibility of the witness and cast doubt on the reliability of their current testimony. Attorneys may use such statements to challenge the witness’s truthfulness, accuracy, or memory of events. However, the admissibility and weight given to previous inconsistent statements can vary depending on the circumstances of the case and the rules of evidence in the relevant jurisdiction.

Full Definition Of Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses

This article describes circumstances in which a witness’s previous statements can be admitted in evidence to rebut his testimony in court. Such a situation usually arises during Cross-examination, but it is not entirely unheard of during Examination-in-chief.

Previous inconsistent statements in cross-examination

Under s.4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (1865), the prosecution may adduce evidence of a previous inconsistent statement to rebut the witness’s evidence-in-chief, if the witness does not admit to making the previous statement. The usual procedure in modern practice is to ask the witness if he wishes to stand by his testimony before adducing the previous statement. In practice, most witnesses will change their testimony if faced with a conflicting earlier statement. If the witness indicates that he will stand by his testimony, the cross-examining party may adduce rebuttal evidence, even to the extent of calling witnesses in rebuttal.

At common law, the previous statement was admissible only to the extent that it allowed the jury to assess the credibility of the witness. However, under the Criminal Justice Act (2003), s.119 provides that a previous statement is admissible as evidence of the facts stated.

Previous inconsistent statements in evidence-in-chief

This situation should be relatively rare — a party ought to be satisfied that a witness he intends to call will ‘come up to proof’. If the witness does not provide useful or persuasive evidence, it is not usually permissible for the party that called the witness to attempt to impeach him. This means that a previous inconsistent statement will be inadmissible. Of course, the calling party is entitled to call other witnesses whose view of events contradicts that of the unfavourable witness.

However, if a witness is not merely unfavourable, but gives testimony that is adverse to the party who called him, leave of the court may be sought to have the witness declared hostile (see hostile witness).

Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses FAQ'S

Previous inconsistent statements are statements made by a witness in the past that are contradictory or inconsistent with their current testimony in a legal proceeding.

Previous inconsistent statements can undermine the credibility of a witness and raise doubts about the reliability of their testimony. They may also provide grounds for impeachment or cross-examination.

Previous inconsistent statements are typically discovered through witness interviews, depositions, or investigations conducted by legal teams. They may also be revealed during cross-examination in court.

Yes, previous inconsistent statements can be used as evidence in court to challenge the credibility of a witness and to demonstrate inconsistencies in their testimony.

Impeachment of a witness refers to the process of challenging the credibility or reliability of their testimony. Previous inconsistent statements are one of the common methods used for impeachment.

Previous inconsistent statements are introduced in court through cross-examination or by presenting evidence such as transcripts, recordings, or affidavits containing the contradictory statements.

Yes, a witness may be given the opportunity to explain or justify their previous inconsistent statements during cross-examination or redirect examination. However, the ultimate determination of credibility lies with the trier of fact.

In some cases, making deliberate or material false statements may lead to perjury charges or other legal consequences. However, inadvertent inconsistencies may not necessarily result in legal repercussions.

Courts consider various factors, including the timing, context, and materiality of the inconsistent statements, as well as the overall credibility of the witness, in determining their significance.

While previous inconsistent statements can weaken the credibility of a witness and influence the outcome of a case, they are just one factor among many considered by the court. The weight given to such statements depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

Related Phrases
No related content found.
Disclaimer

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 28th March, 2024.

Cite Term

To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.

  • Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/previous-inconsistent-statements-of-witnesses/
  • Modern Language Association (MLA):Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. March 28, 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/previous-inconsistent-statements-of-witnesses/.
  • Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/previous-inconsistent-statements-of-witnesses/ (accessed: March 28, 2024).
  • American Psychological Association (APA):Previous Inconsistent Statements Of Witnesses. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved March 28, 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/previous-inconsistent-statements-of-witnesses/