Hearsay Exemptions - Not Hearsay

Question 1

Opposing Party Statements

Answer 1

For silence to be admissible as an opposing party’s statement, the following requirements must be met: (i) the party must have heard and understood the statement; (ii) the party must have been physically and mentally capable of denying the statement; and (iii) a reasonable person would have denied the accusation under the same circumstances.

Question 2

Silence as Adoptive Admission

Answer 2

For silence to be admissible as an opposing party’s statement, the following requirements must be met: (i) the party must have heard and understood the statement; (ii) the party must have been physically and mentally capable of denying the statement; and (iii) a reasonable person would have denied the accusation under the same circumstances.

Question 3

Prior Inconsistent Statements

Answer 3

For the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness, a party may show that the witness has, on another occasion, made statements that are inconsistent with some material part of his present testimony. Furthermore, a testifying witness’s prior inconsistent statement made while under oath and subject to penalty of perjury in a deposition or prior hearing is not hearsay under the Federal Rules, and is therefore admissible as substantive evidence of the facts asserted.

Question 4

Prior Inconsistent Statement Requirements

Answer 4

Under Federal Rule 801(d)(1), a prior inconsistent statement is only considered nonhearsay when (i) the declarant is now testifying at trial and subject to cross-examination and (ii) it was made under penalty of perjury at a prior trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition.

Question 5

Prior Inconsistent Statements - Extrinsic Evidence

Answer 5

Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement may not be used to impeach a witness upon a collateral matter.