Commonwealth v. Lively

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that prior inconsistent statements may be used as substantive evidence when, e.g., given under oath at formal legal proceeding or reduced to writing signed and adopted by witness
• holding that prior inconsistent statements recorded are admissible as substantive evidence
• holding prior inconsistent statement of non-party witness is admissible as substantive evidence if statement was given under oath at formal legal proceeding, reduced to writing signed and adopted by witness, or contemporaneous verbatim recording
• allowing for admission of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence when “reduced to a writing signed and adopted by the declarant[.]”’
• citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Kunish, 529 Pa. 206, 207, 602 A.2d 849, 849 (1992)
• detailing when a prior inconsistent statement may be used as substantive evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).