Opinion ID: 551537
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inconsistent Deposition Testimony.

Text: 7 A trial judge has considerable discretion to determine whether a prior statement is inconsistent with a witness' trial testimony. We will not disturb such a ruling on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Leach, 613 F.2d 1295, 1305 (5th Cir.1980). In his deposition prior to trial, Brunson stated: I felt that Mr. Allen could return to work as of January 7 and on this occasion released him without restrictions, again, at his urging that he ... not return to work ... with any type of restriction. Brunson had just completed a thorough physical examination of Allen which revealed no reason not to allow him to return to work without a restriction. At trial Brunson stated: In December of 1984 I thought he could return to work without restrictions. The trial judge commented that the statements were not inconsistent and subsequently granted Brunson's motion to strike the deposition testimony. Brunson's deposition indicates nothing more than the fact that he was aware Allen could not return to his former job unless he was certified fit to work with no weight restrictions. We find no abuse of discretion. 8