Which statement about prior inconsistent statements is correct?

• A. It must be made in a formal proceeding under oath.
• B. The statement must be consistent with the witness's testimony.
• C. It cannot be used for impeachment.
• D. It must be made after motive arises.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is impeachment through inconsistency. A prior inconsistent statement is used to challenge a witness’s credibility by showing that what they said earlier conflicts with what they’re saying on the stand now. The prior statement does not have to have been made in a formal, sworn proceeding to be used for impeachment; extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible if the witness had an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.

Among the options, the one that would be true of prior inconsistent statements is that they are not required to be consistent with the witness’s current testimony (in fact, they must be inconsistent). They can be used to impeach the witness, and their use does not hinge on motive arising. A statement need not have been made under oath to be used for impeachment (though sworn prior statements can sometimes be admitted as substantive evidence if they meet other conditions).