Deposition Contradicts Trial Testimony
India Inoue testified at trial that she never saw the contract. Counsel introduced her earlier deposition stating the opposite. The deposition impeached her credibility on the key fact.
Also known as: impescatus · impeach
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An evidentiary procedure for discrediting a witness by contradiction or prior inconsistent statements.
India Inoue testified at trial that she never saw the contract. Counsel introduced her earlier deposition stating the opposite. The deposition impeached her credibility on the key fact.
Igor Ito offered to pay half the disputed amount during negotiations. At trial the opponent tried to use the offer to show the claim's weakness. The court excluded the evidence because it was made in compromise talks.
Ivy Ibarra belonged to an organization whose rules required members to lie for one another. Opposing counsel cross-examined her about that membership to show bias. The evidence was admitted to attack her credibility.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Isla Ireland received Miranda warnings and stayed silent. The prosecutor later argued her silence showed she was sane. The court barred that use because post-warning silence cannot impeach an insanity defense.
Iris Irons testified she had never been served. Counsel introduced her deposition admitting receipt of process. The deposition impeached her jurisdictional defense.
Isabelle Inman gave trial testimony inconsistent with her earlier statements. Opposing counsel introduced the prior statements to impeach. The court allowed the impeachment on credibility grounds.
Yes. Any party may introduce a deposition to contradict or impeach the deponent's trial testimony or for other purposes permitted by the evidence rules.
No. Evidence of compromise offers or statements made during negotiations is inadmissible to prove or disprove a claim or to impeach by prior inconsistent statement.
Yes. A witness may be impeached by showing membership in a group whose tenets encourage lying or favoritism toward fellow members. Such evidence is always relevant to credibility.
No. Once warnings are given, due process prohibits using the defendant's silence to rebut claims of mental illness or lack of culpability.
…never be used by the prosecution. In fact, statements merely intended to be exculpatory by the defendant are often used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate untruths in the statement given under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. These statements are incriminating in any meaningful…