her breast on numerous occasions starting in 2009, after the family moved to a residence on Shepherd Street. The mother of D.J. and M.J. also testified. On direct examination, the government asked her a series of questions about periods of time when she was separated from appellant and had children with other men. She testified that she had four children when she was separated from appellant, and that she and appellant had “started getting back involved with each other when he was released from jail in 2000.” That testimony prompted a motion for a mistrial, which was denied. The jury convicted appellant of seven counts of first-degree and six counts of second-degree child sexual abuse. Two of the original counts were dismissed at the government’s request, an 620, 623 (Ct.App.Div.1982) (<HOLDING>). These courts therefore do not permit the use
holding that government could not impeach witness with prior statement because he refused to answer any questions and thus gave no testimony in court with which the prior statement could be judged to be inconsistent holding that hearsay statement did not constitute competent evidence and thus could not be considered in opposition to motion for summary judgment holding that witness could not be impeached with prior statement because his silence did not constitute testimony  holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible where defense counsel implied in his opening statement that witness should not be believed because of the favorable consideration he received from the government in his plea bargaining agreement holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony