Kentucky Jury Instruction - Explanatory Instruction - Prior Statement or Testimony of a Witness

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions - Trial Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CRT-4
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form is a model for an explanatory instruction regarding the prior statement or testimony of a witness. The instruction explains that prior tesitmony is not normally allowed for the truth or falsity thereof, but instead as a means of helping to determine the truth or falsity of current testimony. Kentucky Jury Instruction — ExplanatorInstructionio— - Prior Statement or Testimony of a Witness is an essential element of the trial process in Kentucky. It addresses the use of a witness's prior statement or testimony as evidence during a trial. This instruction assists the jury in understanding the relevance, credibility, and weight that should be given to such statements or testimony. The Kentucky Jury Instruction — ExplanatorInstructionio— - Prior Statement or Testimony of a Witness can be divided into three types, depending on the circumstances: 1. Prior Consistent Statement: This instruction is used when a witness is accused of fabricating their testimony or being influenced by external factors. It explains that a witness's prior consistent statement, given before they had any motive to fabricate or were influenced, may be considered as evidence to support their credibility. The jury will be instructed on how to evaluate the significance of this prior consistent statement in relation to the witness's current testimony. 2. Prior Inconsistent Statement: When a witness's prior statement contradicts their current testimony, the jury needs guidance on how to assess the credibility of such statements. The explanatory instruction explains that the jury may choose to consider the inconsistency as evidence to question the witness's credibility. It is essential to evaluate the reasons behind the inconsistency and assess the impact it may have on the overall reliability of the witness's testimony. 3. Impeachment: This portion of the explanatory instruction addresses the scenario where a witness's prior statement or testimony is used purely for the purpose of impeaching their credibility. It highlights that these prior statements should not be considered as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Instead, the jury should solely use this evidence to question the reliability and credibility of the witness's current testimony. The instruction explains how this impeachment evidence affects the overall weight of the witness's statements and alerts the jury to the limited purpose for which it can be used. In summary, the Kentucky Jury Instruction — ExplanatorInstructionio— - Prior Statement or Testimony of a Witness provides guidance to the jury in properly assessing the relevance, credibility, and weight of a witness's prior statement or testimony. By clearly explaining the different types of prior statements and their implications, this instruction ensures a fair and balanced evaluation of the evidence presented during a trial.

Kentucky Jury Instruction — ExplanatorInstructionio— - Prior Statement or Testimony of a Witness is an essential element of the trial process in Kentucky. It addresses the use of a witness's prior statement or testimony as evidence during a trial. This instruction assists the jury in understanding the relevance, credibility, and weight that should be given to such statements or testimony. The Kentucky Jury Instruction — ExplanatorInstructionio— - Prior Statement or Testimony of a Witness can be divided into three types, depending on the circumstances: 1. Prior Consistent Statement: This instruction is used when a witness is accused of fabricating their testimony or being influenced by external factors. It explains that a witness's prior consistent statement, given before they had any motive to fabricate or were influenced, may be considered as evidence to support their credibility. The jury will be instructed on how to evaluate the significance of this prior consistent statement in relation to the witness's current testimony. 2. Prior Inconsistent Statement: When a witness's prior statement contradicts their current testimony, the jury needs guidance on how to assess the credibility of such statements. The explanatory instruction explains that the jury may choose to consider the inconsistency as evidence to question the witness's credibility. It is essential to evaluate the reasons behind the inconsistency and assess the impact it may have on the overall reliability of the witness's testimony. 3. Impeachment: This portion of the explanatory instruction addresses the scenario where a witness's prior statement or testimony is used purely for the purpose of impeaching their credibility. It highlights that these prior statements should not be considered as substantive evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Instead, the jury should solely use this evidence to question the reliability and credibility of the witness's current testimony. The instruction explains how this impeachment evidence affects the overall weight of the witness's statements and alerts the jury to the limited purpose for which it can be used. In summary, the Kentucky Jury Instruction — ExplanatorInstructionio— - Prior Statement or Testimony of a Witness provides guidance to the jury in properly assessing the relevance, credibility, and weight of a witness's prior statement or testimony. By clearly explaining the different types of prior statements and their implications, this instruction ensures a fair and balanced evaluation of the evidence presented during a trial.