this threshold requirement. 1. Refusal and Inconsistency The parties vigorously contest whether D.J.’s trial testimony was inconsistent with her statements in the video. The government contends that D.J. refused to testify and that her refusal was inconsistent with the statements in her CAC interview. Appellant contends that because D.J. did not give any trial testimony related to the first time she was abused, there was no testimony for her prior statement to be inconsistent with. If anything, he argues, DJ.’s testimony was consistent with her C lding that refusal to testify about an event has the same evasive effect as a claim of memory loss and thus is inconsistent with a witness’s prior statements describing that event. E.g., United States v. Truman, 688 F.3d 129, 142 (2d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Iglesias, 535 F.3d 150, 159
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 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 recognizing that trial court has duty to determine whether witness silence is properly grounded in fifth amendment and to require witness to answer where refusal to testify is not warranted 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 failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions