How is memory attacked during witness impeachment?

The correct answer focuses on highlighting inconsistencies in prior testimonies as a method of attacking memory during witness impeachment. When a witness has previously provided conflicting accounts or statements about the same event, it raises questions about the reliability and accuracy of their memory. Inconsistencies can shake the credibility of the witness, suggesting that they either do not remember the events correctly or have altered their account for some reason.

This approach targets the core of memory function—its accuracy and the witness’s ability to recall events. If a witness's recollection cannot be trusted due to past contradictions, it severely undermines their overall reliability in the eyes of the judge or jury. Demonstrating these inconsistencies often involves careful examination of prior statements or testimonies, allowing the attorney to illustrate memory lapses or distortions effectively.

Other options may address different aspects of a witness's credibility but do not specifically focus on memory. For instance, presenting prior criminal history might be used to challenge the character of the witness but doesn't directly attack their memory or ability to recall events accurately. Discussing the lack of importance of a witness or challenging the timing of events might cast doubt on their relevance or logical sequencing, respectively, but does not specifically engage with the accuracy or reliability of their memory directly