What must be true about a prior inconsistent statement to be admissible?

For a prior inconsistent statement to be admissible, it must be given under penalty of perjury. This requirement emphasizes the importance of the statement being made in a context where the speaker is aware of the seriousness and potential legal implications of their words. When a statement is made under penalty of perjury, it carries an assurance of reliability, as the individual is legally bound to tell the truth. This helps to establish that the statement can be used to challenge the credibility of the witness if they later contradict themselves.

The other options do not satisfy the requirements for admissibility of a prior inconsistent statement. A written statement is not necessary; oral statements can also be admissible. The idea that it must be corroborated by a witness is incorrect, as the statement itself can be presented without such corroboration in many cases. Furthermore, the statement does not need to be shared with the public to be admissible; what matters is the context in which it was made, particularly the penalty of perjury aspect, reinforcing the importance of truthful testimony in legal proceedings.