美国、日本和我国台湾地区证人先前不一致陈述既可作为弹劾证据也可作为实质证据使用。与日本和我国台湾地区相比,美国法严格限制证人先前不一致陈述作为实质证据使用,并为其作为弹劾证据使用设立详细的规则。我国《关于办理死刑案件审查判断证据若干问题的规定》对证人先前不一致陈述的适用有所涉及,但仅限实质性用途。实践中,证人先前不一致陈述的运用存在的问题主要是:通常是在主询问中以先前不一致陈述弹劾己方证人和法官更容易采信先前不一致陈述。我国应借鉴域外经验从先前不一致陈述弹劾和实质用途两方面来构建证人先前不一致陈述的运用规则。 The earlier inconsistencies between witnesses in the United States, Japan and Taiwan in our country can be used both as impeachment evidence and as substantive evidence. Compared with Japan and Taiwan in China, the U.S. law strictly limits the previous statements of inconsistency of witness to be used as substantive evidence and sets up detailed rules for its use as impeachment evidence. The provisions of the “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Examination and Judgment of Deceptive Cases of Death Sentences” in our country involve the application of witness statements previously inconsistent, but only for substantive purposes. In practice, the main problems with the use of witness prior inconsistencies are mainly the fact that it is often easier to adopt earlier statements of inconsistency when the witness and judge in one’s own inquiries were previously inconsistent statements. My country should learn from extraterritorial experience to construct the operational rules for the previous inconsistent statements of witnesses from two aspects of impeachment and substantive use that were previously inconsistent.