– Table of Contents –

Federal Rules of Evidence – Rule 613 

(through July 14, 2022)

Crushed Rule

If you cross-examine a witness about a prior witness assertion, do you have to show or describe to the witness any evidence you may have of the prior assertion? No. But if requested, you must do that for opposing counsel.

Is extrinsic evidence of sworn inconsistencies admissible? Yes, if justice requires, or if the witness has a chance to explain the inconsistency and the opposing party has a chance to examine the witness about it.

Actual Rule

(a) Showing or Disclosing the Statement During Examination. When examining a witness about the witness’s prior statement, a party need not show it or disclose its contents to the witness. But the party must, on request, show it or disclose its contents to an adverse party’s attorney.

(b) Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Statement. Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. This subdivision (b) does not apply to an opposing party’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2).

Selected Committee Notes 

Subdivision (a). The Queen’s Case, 2 Br. & B. 284, 129 Eng. Rep. 976 (1820), laid down the requirement that a cross-examiner, prior to questioning the witness about his own prior statement in writing, must first show it to the witness. Abolished by statute in the country of its origin, the requirement nevertheless gained currency in the United States. The rule abolishes this useless impediment, to cross-examination. Ladd, Some Observations on Credibility: Impeachment of Witnesses, 52 Cornell L.Q. 239, 246–247 (1967); McCormick §28; 4 Wigmore §§1259–1260. Both oral and written statements are included.

The provision for disclosure to counsel is designed to protect against unwarranted insinuations that a statement has been made when the fact is to the contrary.

The rule does not defeat the application of Rule 1002 relating to production of the original when the contents of a writing are sought to be proved. Nor does it defeat the application of Rule 26(b)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as revised, entitling a person on request to a copy of his own statement, though the operation of the latter may be suspended temporarily.

Subdivision (b). The familiar foundation requirement that an impeaching statement first be shown to the witness before it can be proved by extrinsic evidence is preserved but with some modifications. See Ladd, Some Observations on Credibility: Impeachment of Witnesses, 52 Cornell L.Q. 239, 247 (1967). The traditional insistence that the attention of the witness be directed to the statement on cross-examination is relaxed in favor of simply providing the witness an opportunity to explain and the opposite party an opportunity to examine on the statement, with no specification of any particular time or sequence. Under this procedure, several collusive witnesses can be examined before disclosure of a joint prior inconsistent statement. See Comment to California Evidence Code §770. Also, dangers of oversight are reduced.

See McCormick §37, p. 68.

In order to allow for such eventualities as the witness becoming unavailable by the time the statement is discovered, a measure of discretion is conferred upon the judge. Similar provisions are found in California Evidence Code §770 and New Jersey Evidence Rule 22(b).

Under principles of expression unius the rule does not apply to impeachment by evidence of prior inconsistent conduct. The use of inconsistent statements to impeach a hearsay declaration is treated in Rule 806.

– Table of Contents –

Key Rules (MBE/MEE)

• FRE 103 – Evidence Rulings
• FRE 104 – Preliminary Questions
• FRE 105 – Limiting How Evidence may be Used
• FRE 106 – Completeness Rule
• FRE 201 – Judicial Notice
• FRE 301 – Presumptions
• FRE 401 – Relevance
• FRE 402 – Irrelevant = Inadmissible
• FRE 403 – Excluding the Prejudicial, Confusing, etc.
• FRE 404 – Character Evidence
• FRE 405 – Proving Character
• FRE 406 – Habit, Routine
• FRE 407 – Subsequent Remedial Measures
• FRE 408 – Compromise Negotiations
• FRE 409 – Offers to Pay Expenses
• FRE 410 – Pleas, Related Statements
• FRE 411 – Liability Insurance
• FRE 412 – Victim’s Sexual Predisposition
• FRE 413, 414, 415 – Other Sex-Related Rules
• FRE 501 – Privilege in General
• FRE 502 – Attorney-Client Privilege, Work-Product Doctrine
• FRE 601 – Witness Competency
• FRE 602 – Personal Knowledge
• FRE 605 – Judge as Witness
• FRE 606 – Juror as Witness
• FRE 607 – Impeachment
• FRE 608 – Honest, Dishonest Character
• FRE 609 – Evidence of Criminal Conviction
• FRE 610 – Religious Beliefs
• FRE 611 – Mode, Order of Evidence
• FRE 612 – Recollection Refreshed
• FRE 613 – Prior Statements
• FRE 614 – Court Witness Examination
• FRE 615 – Excluding Witnesses
• FRE 701 – Non-Expert Opinion
• FRE 702 – Expert Opinion
• FRE 703 – Bases of Expert Opinion
• FRE 704 – Ultimate Issue
• FRE 705 – Disclosing Underlying Data
• FRE 801 – Hearsay Defined
• FRE 802 – Rule Against Hearsay
• FRE 803 – Strong Hearsay Exceptions
• FRE 804 – Weak Hearsay Exceptions
• FRE 805 – Double Hearsay
• FRE 806 – Impeaching Hearsay Declarants
• FRE 807 – Residual Hearsay Exception
• FRE 901 – Authentication, Identification
• FRE 902 – Self-Authenticating Evidence
• FRE 1001 – Original Defined
• FRE 1002 – Original Sometimes Required
• FRE 1003 – When Copies Generally Admissible
• FRE 1004 – Other Times Admissible
• FRE 1005 – Public Record Copies Often Admissible
• FRE 1006 – Summaries
• FRE 1007 – Acknowledged Content
• FRE 1008 – Functions of Court, Jury
• FRE 1101 – Rules’ Applicability