Practice question
A witness’s earlier sworn trial statement contradicts current testimony. The witness is now cross-examinable about it and the proponent identifies both impeachment and substantive truth purposes. The opponent argues admissibility for impeachment necessarily excludes every substantive use. Which is correct?
- The current Section37(a) conditions may support both uses; the purposes must be distinguished
- Every impeachment item is necessarily unusable for truth in all circumstances
- Every inconsistent statement is automatically privileged
- Cross-examination can never matter
- Only the proponent’s preferred label controls
Legal references
- AM19-08-15-SC, effectiveMay1,2020, Rules128 Sections3–4;129 Section4;130 Sections21–22,28,37;132 Sections34,39: https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.