Appellate Law

CA1: prior inconsistent statements admissible, but error harmless

By S. COTUS

US v. Pridgen, No. 06-2595 (2/29/08).  The First holds that yes, it was error to refuse to admit the prior inconsistent statements of a government witness.  This was the District Court?s grounds: 1) ?That?s not how you get a prior inconsistent statement into evidence?; and 2) ?it doesn?t fit within the rules.?  The government seems to argue that the problem was that the defendant didn?t identify the rule at issue (FRE 613(b)).  The First has no idea why the District Court tried to exclude the evidence. 

Although the parties differ as to whether a constitutional or evidentiary standard should be applied, the First says that it was error ? but harmless (under both standards), as there was lots of other evidence.  And, since there was lots of other evidence, every attempt to explain why the prior inconsistent statements matter fails.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 04, 2008 (boomark / email).