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 and an adverse party is given 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 even without the witness's opportunity to explain or deny
• B. It is admissible regardless of any opportunity to explain or deny
• C. It is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny and an adverse party can examine
• D. It does not apply to an opposing party's statement under Rule 801(d)(2)

Answer: (D)

Rule 613(a) sets a limit on using extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement: you normally must give the witness a chance to explain or deny the statement and give the opposing party a chance to examine, unless justice requires otherwise. The important exception is that this subdivision does not apply to statements made by an opposing party under Rule 801(d)(2). Those statements are admissions by a party-opponent and can be admitted as substantive evidence without the witness needing to be asked to explain or deny first, and without cross-examination. So the idea is that the general requirement of giving an opportunity to explain or deny does not constrain an opposing party’s statement. The other options impose the normal prerequisites or ignore the special status of a party-opponent admission, which is why they’re not correct.