How can the credibility of a hearsay declarant be attacked?

The correct choice regarding how to attack the credibility of a hearsay declarant is to use any admissible evidence if the declarant had testified. This approach is rooted in the idea that if the declarant were present and had testified, their credibility could be assessed through various means, such as by presenting prior inconsistent statements, evidence of bias, or evidence of a lack of knowledge about the relevant facts.

Using admissible evidence to challenge the credibility allows the party to demonstrate that the declarant’s reliability or truthfulness is questionable. This aligns with the broader rules of evidence that allow both parties to fully explore the credibility of witnesses to ensure a fair trial. In the context of hearsay, since the declarant is not present to be cross-examined, the law permits the introduction of evidence that could impact the weight and reliability of their statements, mirroring what would occur if they were testifying in person.

This option is particularly significant in legal proceedings where the credibility of witnesses plays a crucial role. Unlike the other options, which may not align with evidentiary rules or practical courtroom strategy, this approach effectively utilizes the available tools to assess the declarant's reliability comprehensively.