Does a witness's prior inconsistent statement preclude the witness from testifying about the subject matter?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED } Does a wine $ toring, Phat he does nok cemew' va his Previous inkecurea) (prior StakeMeNnt) Lo ro rel, ov d vhe shake mw Nox wasuing, 0 eskololisy a eropes foundeborn \pefoce, admitting. ' digo thivds of nis ertec shatewvent Look Bee ever eoluiolishioy Reopet Found abwr to Specaere Sulgyech Molter? ha a witness States he does nok rememboer Wig eahre In KV) eco, Yank ender his feshmeny Muunsistenk with. he 5 Leetenints Coes ) nak \naloi h ne made prensiours \eg 2 And does Mew valet by to cecal | i enhre intevitw Weep Ye state frown noving dp os K Ye mn 5 , alok ao 392 Cc suoyeck Mak oefore adi ing nose 5 LNFS? ‘}Ean a dekendent sented under T30TLCS $/5-P\LA()LO) be Subject to mote than a single Lorn 0L \Ee in GeISSA E(Endiny a0 0 Hrocby yoverniny Ws sue) . STF the stale introduce evidence *® estates Mohye in Hac abstrecck “V2 ENIOWNER Prak somesn@ MOG Nowe nad AMotiVe YOUN tye deceated rs Hhat encunce Considered ecejudscat bo the deFendeat once ft is established Hat Pre state Could nok Prove Hac. dee nden © Idrew of Mose Gicks J does Mak \wolake Ye derendent> Cig fm due erocese ¢ Yen a Krancel h etring, if (ue hs erovyy Yar *xeia\ wanes Fave Yo inveshrg-oke witnesses and Cuiled +0 ‘noroughly gee Boorery Materta DELS RBLASLA Lory CRs ACE A ACRES ROR ss ag AASOD Gs Snag Sne Ocferdeny Shswed ne Cequices Poss ble neglect fo wpanrank the ter Of Lack Qudye? Yo agerk Counsel fC aye next 3 tage of & lerankceA heacnga . Gg? when determining whethic drial counse) ated Stoadeyically wn ack COS CKEHA 06, O Bae wWrmessy Whe wes believed to Nave place he de Fender” 0% We Seen OF A EMME Mere Minates lWefore Ye aMedge Crime hae end, earch POO Anereo Te eve id a grvor syasemerk Croan hat corres 5 stealing hat she Ow sen \E> Oth VE the dekenden 4 Was actue l\y Were , Could yt we (Seen bY ANS Ceasonable PXSIA OS Sorta Sheatbeay Net yo con Fonk Whe waviness worth Mok stubement 2 (the waterr of this quetirs fs beced around the defender t “st what 4ria\ counsel did ney Senos of Yrak Pour stakeen >, thats why Wre did t Cross hee on i+. chive \ x6 CoUNSe}, Foled +o doer Ne & WeacSay sraxyemerk soli cited \oy prosceuttion fron, © aan ohare clot what co waness Stalked twa prion SOlement a5 to {hit she'felk" like Fhe vibe oe She \efe We Ahe seen oF he crime —TWor Sne Fel we Wus Warking, Ro NRE vane SO Mat we nr g do a dug den) Bats Dib Wack ere gudicg the deRroeve and Ad Ane Boas Paccills Nealert Rar beial Counsel?