Tortoise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,748
- Reaction score
- 135,240
Yes, from my point of view (I don't know if it's the reason behind it or not) what someone said when they were not under oath wouldn't be put to a jury because it's not testimony.I'm not Gitana of course, but what I see happen when they are asked to review their prior statement is the attorney tells the witness to just read it to themselves, but not out loud.
Its only done to see if it can refresh their own memory.
Imo
It can be used to show if someone is telling a different story now for example, as we saw with Chase's sister, so the jury will have to take into consideration that she gave different answers and consequently is an unreliable witness. She gave a reason for that - saying she was more or less incompetent when Smith interviewed her, so he took the stand to testify to his observations of her at the time and why he deemed her to have sufficient recall of information and detail when he interviewed her.
JMO