Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) Rule 801(d)(1)(A) - prior inconsistent statements

WELCOME to my “Federal Rules of Evidence” program for students interested in the evidentiary rules that govern trials in federal court. "Federal Rules of Evidence" is a series of 12 playlists (with many videos) designed to introduce viewers to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), as well as evidentiary concepts and arguments under the FRE. The 12 playlist topics are set out below in this description.
This playlist covers FRE Rules in Article VIII (Hearsay definition and exemptions). This video covers NOT hearsay defined - prior inconsistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) - and this playlist (organized by FRE rule/concept) features the following videos:
 Article VIII. Hearsay generally - policy
 Article VIII. Hearsay generally - witness quoting others
 Rule 801(a)-(c). [Hearsay] Definitions:
 [no FRE] Not for “truth of the matter asserted” - Top 5 definitional arguments
 Article VII. Objection, hearsay - Does the question call for hearsay?
 Rule 801(d). Exclusions from hearsay - generally
 Rule 801(d)(1)(A). Prior inconsistent statements - admissible for the truth
 Rule 801(d)(1)(B). Prior Consistent Statements [after recent charge of fabrication]
 Rule 801(d)(2)(A). Statements by Party Opponents
 Rule 801(d)(2)(B-D). Statements Attributed to Party Opponents - adopted, authorized, agent
 Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Statements Attributed to Party Opponents - Conspirators
The channel features several videos within each of these 12 playlists:
 Intro to FRE Rules & Concepts *(start here)*
 Articles I & II - General & Judicial Notice.
 Article IV - Relevance & 403
 Article IV - Policy rules
 Article IV - Character evidence
 Article V - Privileges
 Article IV - Witnesses
 Article IV - Impeachment
 Article VII - Opinion testimony
 Article VIII - Hearsay - definition/exemptions
 Article VIII - Hearsay - exceptions
 Articles IX & X - Authentication & Original doc
ABOUT ME:
Professor Wes Porter served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Fraud Section, in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii and the JAG Corps for the U.S. Navy stationed in the Trial Service Office Pacific. After lecturing and teaching as an adjunct professor for years, he moved to academia full-time teaching courses in Evidence, Criminal Law and Procedure, and skills courses like Trial Advocacy. Professor Porter earned tenure, became a full professor of law, and led a center devoted to evidence, litigation and trial skills training.
Professor Porter still teaches in law schools and trains lawyers new to the profession. To contact Professor Porter with questions or video topic requests, you may email him at [e-mail].
©Wes R. Porter 2020. All rights reserved.

[@isabelburgos4514]

You are THE BEST!!! Thanks for this beautiful explanation, Professor. I love you

[@abhinavgarg6487]

Easily the best presentation of the rules of evidence. Thank you Professor.

[@akashgehlawat3433]

Thanks a lot, this sub-point was killing me. Great presentation!!!

[@gerardmatar]

Great presentation of complicated information we are covering class! Thanks :)

[@agmartir]

I'm taking evidence now. These videos are so helpful! Thank you.

[@edadams376]

👍🏽👍🏽

[@BitterComments]

Thanks dude, your videos are proving greatly useful :)

[@professorporter]

Glad you like them!

[@AnneOrtiz88]

Very helpful! Thank you

[@professorporter]

You're welcome!

[@cballer77]

Can you do this on cross? For example, if I have prior statement from Bob at a Grand Jury hearing that "Jim is a liar," and then on cross I ask Bob if Jim is a liar and Bob says no, can I then use 801(d)(1)(A) to admit Bob's statement from in front of the Grand Jury both for impeachment of Bob and for the truth of the matter?

[@professorporter]

Yes. Of course. Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement typically occurs on cross

[@MustafaAli-ey5oy]

How I do contac professor port to asked questions