MBE Rules · Evidence
Attacking the Hearsay Declarant
FRE 806
The rule
When a hearsay statement is admitted, the declarant's credibility may be attacked (and supported) by any evidence usable against a testifying witness, and prior inconsistent statements need no opportunity to explain.
In plain English
When a hearsay statement is allowed in court, the person who made that statement (the declarant) can have their credibility challenged just like any witness who testifies. If the declarant made a statement that contradicts their current claims, that contradiction can be introduced without giving them a chance to explain it.
Worked example
In a trial, a witness testifies about a statement made by a friend who is not present in court. The opposing party introduces evidence that the friend previously said something completely different about the event. The jury can consider this prior inconsistent statement to question the friend's credibility, impacting the weight of the hearsay evidence.
Memory hook
Hearsay? Attack the declarant's credibility like a witness!
The trap
Exams may present scenarios where students forget that prior inconsistent statements can be used without giving the declarant a chance to explain, leading to confusion about the rules of evidence.
How examiners test it
Questions often involve a hearsay statement followed by a focus on the declarant's prior statements or actions, testing the candidate's understanding of how to challenge credibility.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.