Under Rule 613(a), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party has an opportunity to examine the witness, or if justice requires. This subdivision does not apply to an opposing party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2).

• A. It may be admitted without any opportunity to explain or deny
• B. It is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny and the adverse party has an opportunity to examine, or if justice requires; this does not apply to an opposing party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2)
• C. It is always admissible
• D. It is never admissible

Answer: (B)

Rule 613(a) governs how you can use extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement. The key idea is fairness: you can’t admit such evidence to impeach the witness unless the witness has a chance to explain or deny the statement, and the adverse party has a chance to examine the witness, unless the court determines that justice requires otherwise. This protects the witness from being blindsided and lets all sides test the statement in a controlled way.

The correct formulation matches that framework and also recognizes an important exception: statements by an opposing party fall outside this subdivision because they’re covered by Rule 801(d)(2) as non-hearsay, so they don’t need the same confrontation conditions to be admissible.

So, the best choice states that extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny and the adverse party has an opportunity to examine, or if justice requires; this does not apply to an opposing party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2). The other options ignore the required opportunity for explanation/denial or misstate when such evidence may be admitted.