Rehabilitation may explain an inconsistency, establish the circumstances of a prior statement, or introduce a prior consistent statement where permitted. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) admits certain prior consistent statements as substantive evidence.
Character evidence supporting truthfulness is permitted only after attack.
Alternative Names:
Witness Rehabilitation, Rehabilitating Credibility
Why it Matters?
Prior consistent statements are admissible only to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence, and only if made before the alleged motive arose. That timing requirement defeats most attempts, since a statement made after the litigation began does not rebut a claim that litigation motivated the testimony. Establishing when the motive arose is the analytical predicate.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
When are prior consistent statements admissible?
What defeats most attempts?
