Under Rule 801(d)(1), when is a declarant-witness's prior inconsistent statement admissible as not hearsay?

• A. The inconsistent statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or deposition.
• B. It was made after the declarant testified.
• C. It was solely a consistent statement.
• D. It identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that a prior inconsistent statement can be admitted as not hearsay if it was given under oath in a prior proceeding and the declarant testifies here and is subject to cross-examination about it. When a statement was sworn (made under penalty of perjury) in a trial, hearing, or deposition, and it contradicts the witness’s current testimony, it falls under this Rule 801(d)(1) exception and is not treated as hearsay.

That makes the first option the best fit: it describes a statement that was sworn in a prior proceeding. The other options don’t fit this rule: a statement made after the declarant testified doesn’t satisfy the requirement that the prior statement precedes the current testimony; a statement that is solely consistent shows no inconsistency to begin with; and identifying a person previously perceived involves a different provision about prior identifications rather than about prior inconsistent statements.