Journal Title

Collective Wisdom: When to Impeach with an Inconsistent Statement





First Page


Document Type

Book Chapter

Publication Information



The recognition of multiple goals of cross-examination is nothing new. Despite early emphasis on cross-examination as being needed to expose “mendacity,” Dean Wigmore viewed cross-examination as the essence of the trial and truth-seeking process in the United States. He viewed it as capable of serving two ends: proving untruths and completing the story by eliciting facts that “remained suppressed or undeveloped” on direct examination, including “the remaining and qualifying circumstances of the subject of testimony, as known to the witness.” Precisely because of the presence of dual objectives, timing is everything. Said differently, assume a witness has information useful to the cross-examiner but also made an averment during direct examination that must be impeached with a clearly contradictory prior inconsistent statement.

Recommended Citation

A.J. Bellido de Luna, Collective Wisdom: When to Impeach with an Inconsistent Statement 3, Nat’l Inst. for Trial Advoc. ed., 2021.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.