Evidence - Rule 801(d)(1)(A) -- Inconsistent Statement in Sworn Testimony
Favorable and Noteworthy Decisions in the Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Courts
By Don Samuel
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.
Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.
Sep 1, 2015
United States v. Gajo, 290 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2002)
A witness’s prior sworn testimony may be admitted if the witness claims a lack of memory about a subject. In this case, the witness’s prior grand jury testimony was admitted when he claimed not to remember whether the defendant spoke in English during a particular conversation.
United States v. Bomski, 125 F.3d 1115 (7th Cir. 1997)
Where testimony is offered pursuant to Rule 801(d)(1)(A), it is accepted for the truth of the matter asserted, not simply for impeachment. Thus, where a party introduces the prior sworn testimony of a witness for the purpose of showing a prior inconsistent sworn statement, the prior statement may be considered for the truth of the matter asserted.