Witness testimony is often central to establishing the facts of a case in court. But memories can fade, perspectives can change, and witnesses themselves are not infallible. This is where prior statements—statements made by witnesses before the current trial—can play a vital role in either supporting or challenging their courtroom testimony. Although hearsay evidence is generally prohibited, the definitional carve-outs and exceptions provide trial judges with the latitude to admit trustworthy evidence that would otherwise be excluded. Both the Pennsylvania Code and the Federal Rules of Evidence recognize such exceptions, but they approach their admissibility and use with distinct priorities and limitations.

Under both sets of rules, prior statements can be used for several purposes, such as demonstrating inconsistency in a witness's account, bolstering credibility through consistency, or confirming identification in cases where a witness's recollection might be questioned. Yet these broad similarities are offset by nuanced differences between the two bodies of rules.