NCJ Number
114720
Date Published
1988
Length
16 pages
Annotation
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) allows a prior extrajudicial statement, consistent with a witness' in-court testimony, to be admitted to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive.
Abstract
The rule specifies that such statements are not hearsay and allows them to be used for the truth of the matter asserted. Confusion over the admissibility of prior consistent statements exists in three areas. Controversy has arisen among the Federal courts of appeals as to whether prior consistent statements offered to rebut the implication that a motive to fabricate affected the vercity of trial testimony are admissible only if made prior to the alleged fabrication or improper motive. Most courts have found this temporal requirement implicit in the rule in order to ensure the statement's relevance. A minority hold that timing affects the statement's weight rather than its admissibility. In cases where courts have admitted such statements solely as rehabilitative of the witness' credibility, confusion exists as to whether the same standards required to impeach witness credibility are applicable. Finally, problems arise in the use of prior consistent statements for completeness purposes, i.e., to place impeaching statements in context, show that such statements were not truly inconsistent with trial, testimony, or show that an alleged motive to fabricate did not affect trial testimony. While prior consistent statements offered for the first two purposes should meet a temporal requirement, those offered to ensure completeness should gain substantive admission under rule 801(d)(1)(B) if they are proximate to and related to the subject matter of the impeaching consistent statement. 148 footnotes.