California v. Tyberg

How later courts describe this case

• observing that “[t]he hazard of error is greatly lessened with respect to prior inconsistent written statements signed by the declarant”
• “allowing the substantive use of prior inconsistent statements, signed by the declarant, who has personal knowledge of facts stated, when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination”
• "There is no distinction between the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights....”
• no distinction between right guaranteed under federal constitution and the right to counsel ensured by Article 21
• improper suggestion regarding reasonable doubt and therefore review of circumstantial evidence instruction in isolation where principal issue is intent
• “prior written inconsistent statements, signed by the declarant, who has personal knowledge of the facts stated, when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination” are admissible as substantive evidence
• with requirement that declarant have personal knowledge of the facts stated
• prior inconsistent statements admissible for substantive purposes if adequate indicia of reliability present