Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]
Maine Rule 613 is somewhat similar to its federal counterpart. However, the requirement in the Federal Rule that the witness be given an opportunity to explain a prior inconsistent statement is not maintained in the Maine Rule. The restyled version continues this distinction.
Federal Restyling Committee Note
The language of Rule 613 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.
Advisers’ Note to former M.R. Evid. 613
(February 2, 1976)
This rule abolishes the old English requirement under which a cross-examiner before questioning a witness about his own prior written statement must first show it to the witness. It was changed by statute in England long ago but is still widely followed in this country. There is no reported decision in Maine either accepting or rejecting the rule, but in day-to-day practice in the trial courts it is not required. It is obvious that cross-examination may be more effective if the witness is not given a chance to see his statement before committing himself. The provision for disclosure on request to opposing counsel is to prevent unwarranted insinuations that a statement has been made when the fact is to the contrary.
The Federal Rule includes a subdivision (b) barring extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement unless the witness has been given an opportunity to explain or deny it. This is the general rule but the Maine practice has been to the contrary since Ware v. Ware, 8 Me. 42 (1931). See Currier v. Bangor Ry. & Elec. Co., 119 Me. 313, 111 A. 333 (1920). Often counsel decides as a matter of tactics to confront the witness with the statement, but it has not been compulsory. No such requirement is included because the prevailing practice has worked well.
