Anne Reed at Deliberations, busts another of our dearly held sacred cows, in her piece, The Overrated Prior Inconsistent Statement.   I love this part:

First you tie down the in-court statement until it looks like Gulliver tethered by Lilliputian ropes, with no chance of escape.  (“You’re sure?  You’re really sure?  No chance of mistake?”)  Then you spend some time on the gravity and certainty of the deposition.  (“You were under oath?  Just like today?  You had a chance to correct your answers?  And you didn’t?”)  Then you slap out the inconsistency and try to keep yourself from bellowing out something like “WERE YOU LYING THEN OR ARE YOU LYING NOW?”

See!  You aren’t the only one who has these fantasies.  But of course, then comes the objections and the judge sticking her nose in and all the fun is gone.  But Anne’s point is, does it really matter to the jury?  After all, lawyers may love these, and may want to believe that nailing a witness with a prior inconsistent statement is like bombs going off in the well.  You want to turn to the jury, smirk and say, “See, I told you they were a bunch of lying skels.” 

So you’ve managed to convince yourself that you’re brilliant.  (Don’t worry, your spouse will bring you back to earth when you get home from court.)  Read Anne’s piece and find out what the jury thinks of your coup.