Rule 806 Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility

When someone's out-of-court statement gets used as evidence in a trial (hearsay that was let in, or certain statements made by someone connected to the other side), the person who isn't in court to testify can still have their honesty challenged. The rule lets either side attack or defend that person's credibility using the same kinds of evidence they could use if that person were actually sitting on the witness stand.

This means you can bring up things like prior inconsistent statements the absent person made, or other conduct that suggests they weren't being truthful. Normally, if you want to confront a witness with something inconsistent they said before, you have to give them a chance to explain it. But this rule works differently: since the person isn't there to explain themselves, the court can still allow this evidence in, no matter when the inconsistent statement happened or whether the person ever got a chance to respond to it.

Finally, if the side that got hurt by the hearsay statement decides to call that absent person as their own witness later in the trial, they're not stuck treating them gently. They can question that witness harshly, using leading questions, just like they would when cross-examining a witness from the other side. This gives both parties a fair shot at testing the truthfulness of someone whose words came into evidence, even though that person wasn't originally there to be questioned directly.