Prior Consistent Statements: The Dangers of Misinterpreting Recently Amended Fre 801(D)(1)(B)*

5 Pages Posted: 10 Sep 2016

See all articles by Laird C. Kirkpatrick

Laird C. Kirkpatrick

George Washington University - Law School

Christopher B. Mueller

University of Colorado Law School

Date Written: 2016

Abstract

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) has long provided that prior statements consistent with the testimony of a witness who is subject to cross-examination may be introduced and used as substantive evidence when offered “to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying.” At the end of 2014, the rule was amended also to allow prior consistent statements to be introduced as substantive evidence when offered “to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility as a witness when attacked on another ground.”

Suggested Citation

Kirkpatrick, Laird C. and Mueller, Christopher B., Prior Consistent Statements: The Dangers of Misinterpreting Recently Amended Fre 801(D)(1)(B)* (2016). 24 Trial Evidence 12 2016; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2016-40; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2016-40. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2836114 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2836114

Laird C. Kirkpatrick (Contact Author)

George Washington University - Law School ( email )

2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States

Christopher B. Mueller

University of Colorado Law School ( email )

401 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
56
Abstract Views
371
rank
377,022
PlumX Metrics