to admit the earlier statement as substantive evidence. The Brady rule, however, has been significantly modified by our Supreme Court. This change, brought on by an onslaught of criticism over Brady expansiveness, now requires that only those prior inconsistent statements “that are demonstrably reliable and trustworthy” may be admitted as substantive evidence. Commonwealth v. Lively, 530 Pa. 464, 469-71, 610 A.2d 7, 10 (1992). To this end, the Lively Court required as a requisite to admissibility, that the prior statement be: (1) given under oath at a formal legal hearing; (2) reduced to a writing which was signed or adopted by the witness; or (3) a contemporaneous verbatim recording of the witness’s statements. Id.-, see also Commonwealth v. Johnson, 536 Pa. 153, 638 A.2d 940 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Applying this standard to the ease at hand,
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 a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence holding that to be admissible a prior inconsistent statement must have been uttered under highly reliable circumstances which would render inferences to be drawn from it more probable than not holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that under fedrevid 702 expert testimony must be reliable to be admissible