Rule 806 Attacking and Supporting the Declarant’s Credibility

When someone's out-of-court statement gets used as evidence in a trial (because it counts as hearsay that's allowed in, or because it was made by someone acting on behalf of another party), the person who made that statement can have their honesty challenged, just like a regular witness on the stand. This means a lawyer can bring up reasons why the jury shouldn't trust what that person said, even though that person isn't actually testifying in court.

The lawyer attacking the statement can also use prior inconsistent statements or actions by the person who made the original statement. It doesn't matter when those inconsistent statements happened, and the person doesn't need to have had a chance to explain or deny them first. This is different from how it normally works with witnesses who are actually testifying, where they usually get a chance to respond to accusations of inconsistency.

If the side that got hurt by the statement decides to call that person as their own witness later, they're allowed to question that person as if they were a hostile witness. This means they can ask leading questions and challenge the person's credibility directly, even though normally you can't treat your own witness that way. This rule basically levels the playing field, letting both sides poke holes in the credibility of someone whose words matter to the case, even when that person never takes the witness stand themselves.