Impeachment of Defendant — Prior Inconsistent Statement Taken in Violation of Miranda refers to a court procedure in which one party attempts to discredit the testimony of another party by introducing evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. The statement must have been taken in violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights, such as when a defendant is not informed of their right to remain silent or their right to an attorney. There are two types of impeachment of defendant — prior inconsistent statement taken in violation of Miranda. The first is a direct impeachment, which involves introducing the statement to the court and allowing the accused to explain inconsistencies. The second type is indirect impeachment, which may include introducing evidence of the prior statement to the court or introducing evidence of a defendant’s conduct that is inconsistent with the prior statement, such as when a defendant testifies to an alibi but evidence shows they were in fact in the place of the crime.
Impeachment of Defendant — Prior Inconsistent Statement Taken in Violation of Miranda refers to a court procedure in which one party attempts to discredit the testimony of another party by introducing evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. The statement must have been taken in violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights, such as when a defendant is not informed of their right to remain silent or their right to an attorney. There are two types of impeachment of defendant — prior inconsistent statement taken in violation of Miranda. The first is a direct impeachment, which involves introducing the statement to the court and allowing the accused to explain inconsistencies. The second type is indirect impeachment, which may include introducing evidence of the prior statement to the court or introducing evidence of a defendant’s conduct that is inconsistent with the prior statement, such as when a defendant testifies to an alibi but evidence shows they were in fact in the place of the crime.
