Fre 613b Applies To Hearsay Declarants
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
14796_charity-auction-naomi · EVIDENCE · Choice BNo, because Naomi will be afforded no opportunity to explain or deny the later statement.
Why it's attractive
Invokes FRE 613(b)'s explain-or-deny requirement — a real rule for testifying witnesses — but applies it to a hearsay declarant context where FRE 806 expressly overrides it. Right area (prior inconsistent statement impeachment), wrong variant (testifying witness rule vs. hearsay declarant rule).
Why it's wrong
Invokes FRE 613(b)'s explain-or-deny requirement — a real rule for testifying witnesses — but applies it to a hearsay declarant context where FRE 806 expressly overrides it. Right area (prior inconsistent statement impeachment), wrong variant (testifying witness rule vs. hearsay declarant rule).
14796_charity-auction-naomi · EVIDENCE · Choice CNo, because the prosecutor will be afforded no opportunity to confront Naomi.
Why it's attractive
Asserts that the prosecutor has a constitutional right to confront Naomi. The Confrontation Clause belongs to criminal defendants, not the government. The claim is simply wrong as a matter of constitutional doctrine.
Why it's wrong
Asserts that the prosecutor has a constitutional right to confront Naomi. The Confrontation Clause belongs to criminal defendants, not the government. The claim is simply wrong as a matter of constitutional doctrine.
14796_charity-auction-naomi · EVIDENCE · Choice DYes, because it is substantive proof that Paul did not steal the donation money.
Why it's attractive
Gets the ruling direction right (admissible) but states the wrong purpose. FRE 806 admits the prior inconsistent statement only for impeachment — not as substantive proof. Offered for truth, the statement is hearsay with no applicable exception.
Why it's wrong
Gets the ruling direction right (admissible) but states the wrong purpose. FRE 806 admits the prior inconsistent statement only for impeachment — not as substantive proof. Offered for truth, the statement is hearsay with no applicable exception.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →