In what circumstances will a prosecutor be permitted to use contradictory statements by the same witness in two separate criminal trials?

For example, in Smith v. Groose (8th Cir.2000) 205 F.3d 1045, the prosecutor, in separate trials, used contradictory statements by the same witnessone of which was necessarily falseto convict, on conflicting factual theories, two unrelated defendants (members of separate burglary parties) for felony murder of the same victim. In these circumstances, the three-judge panel held that "the Due Process Clause forbids a state from using inconsistent, irreconcilable theories to secure convictions against two or more defendants in prosecutions for the same offenses arising out of the same event." (Id., at p. 1049, italics added.)