Impeachment & Rehabilitation — NextGen Bar practice question

A prosecutor calls an eyewitness expecting him to identify the defendant as the shooter. To the prosecutor’s surprise, the witness testifies that the shooter was a stranger he had never seen before. The prosecutor seeks to confront the witness with his signed statement to police, given the night of the crime, in which he named the defendant as the gunman. Defense counsel objects that the prosecution may not attack the credibility of a witness it chose to put on the stand.

Is the defense’s objection well taken?

Option A. Incorrect answer. Yes, because a party vouches for the credibility of any witness it calls.
Option B. Incorrect answer. Yes, because a party may impeach its own witness only after a showing of surprise.
Option C. Correct answer. No, because any party may attack the credibility of any witness, including its own.Correct
Option D. Incorrect answer. No, because the prior statement is admissible as substantive proof of identity.

Why

Under FRE 607, any party — including the one that called the witness — may attack the witness’s credibility, so the prosecutor may impeach his own eyewitness with the prior inconsistent statement (C). A rests on the abandoned “voucher” rule, which the modern rules reject. B states the old common-law surprise-or-hostility requirement, also gone under FRE 607; no special showing is needed. D is a tempting trap on a different rule: the police statement was not made under oath at a proceeding, so under FRE 801(d)(1)(A) it is admissible to impeach only, not as substantive proof that the defendant was the shooter. The objection fails because impeaching one’s own witness is expressly allowed.

Why