was played in court, D.J. stated under oath that what she said there was true. See Williams v. United States, 859 A.2d 130, 138 (D.C.2004) (videotape of CAC interview properly treated as substantive evidence because witness adopted those portions of the CAC video used to impeach her). We put aside the precise basis for treating the videotaped statement as substantive evidence because both the statute and the common law rule require, as a preliminary matter, that the statement be inconsistent with the witness’s testimony at trial. See Perritt v. United States, 640 A.2d 702, 706 (D.C.1994) (noting common-law requirement that a prior statement be inconsistent with trial testimony before it can be used for impeachment). We ultimately conclude that the government did not satisf d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); People v. Homick, 55 Cal.4th 816, 150
holding that a witness who testifies in one proceeding may not be compelled to give further testimony in a different proceeding holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant an opportunity to recall a witness who had already testified and been subject to crossexamination holding that where a witness who testifies under oath and is subject to crossexamination in a prior state court proceeding explicitly refuses to answer the same questions at trial the refusal to answer is inconsistent with his prior testimony holding that vague conclusory statements are insufficient holding that when a witness who testifies frankly under oath subject to crossexamination only two days later states that he now cant answer the question and is otherwise evasive and vague a district court may find that these statements are inconsistent