Footnote of Interest

Last Tuesday, the Mississippi Court of Appeals decided Dixon v. Dixon located here.  There is an interesting footnote in the opinion of interest.  The Court found in a footnote that deposition testimony may be taken as substantive proof and found more credible than trial testimony.  The footnote 9 stated:

9 It is true, as the partial dissent points out, that Tracy contradicted himself at trial. However, the chancellor, as the finder of fact, was entitled to find Tracy’s deposition testimony more credible than his trial testimony.  See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 908 n.16 (11th Cir. 1982) (explaining that if a party’s trial testimony contradicts his prior deposition testimony, and the deposition testimony is “read . . . to” and “acknowledged” by the party at trial, the fact-finder may then consider and rely on the deposition testimony “as substantive evidence”).