This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Pisari (D) was charged with the robbery of a postal installation. At trial, D denied having ever performed a robbery by knife. The court allowed Coombs, a government agent, to testify for impeachment purposes that D had stated that he had robbed a drug dealer with a knife and told him that he had previously engaged in the robbery of a drug dealer using a knife. This evidence was admitted as proof of a prior inconsistent statement relevant to D's credibility. D was convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Coombs' testimony was neither admissible as a prior inconsistent statement for purposes of impeachment nor as independent proof of D's identity. Upon petition for rehearing by the government (P), the opinion was withdrawn and reconsidered.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.