Also known as: Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(C) · Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) · prior identification · statement of identification · 801(d)(1)(C)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule classifying a declarant-witness's prior statement of identification as nonhearsay when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination about the statement. The rule applies even if the witness lacks present memory of the identification's basis.
Erin suffered a concussion during a store robbery and later picked Daniel from a lineup. At trial Erin recalls the robbery but cannot remember the lineup or her reasons for selecting Daniel. Detective Lopez testifies to the lineup identification. The prior identification qualifies as nonhearsay because Erin is on the stand and available for cross-examination about the statement.
A child victim identifies the defendant in a pretrial interview. At trial the child testifies consistently but faces a charge of recent fabrication. The earlier identification statement is offered to rebut the charge. The statement meets the requirements for nonhearsay treatment because the child testifies and can be cross-examined about the identification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A robbery victim views a lineup and identifies the defendant. At trial the victim testifies and is cross-examined about the lineup procedure. Defense counsel seeks to exclude testimony about the lineup identification. The prior identification is admissible as nonhearsay because the victim testifies and remains subject to cross-examination.
A witness glimpses an assailant fleeing a hospital garage and later selects the defendant's photo from an array. At trial the witness testifies to the array selection. The defense objects on hearsay grounds. The out-of-court identification is nonhearsay because the witness testifies and can be cross-examined about the statement.
A robbery victim works with police to create a sketch and later identifies the defendant at a lineup. At trial the victim testifies and faces cross-examination about both the sketch and lineup. The prosecution offers the lineup identification. The statement qualifies as nonhearsay because the victim is present and subject to cross-examination.
No. The rule requires only that the declarant testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination about the prior identification statement. Lack of memory about the reasons for the identification does not prevent admission.
Supporting sources
No. The rule applies to any statement identifying a person the declarant perceived earlier. The identification need not occur in a formal setting or under oath.
Supporting sources
No. Suggestiveness goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its classification as nonhearsay. The rule focuses on the declarant's testimony and availability for cross-examination.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule requires only an earlier perception followed by an identification statement. Intervening familiarity affects weight, not the nonhearsay status of the statement.
Supporting sources
…and reveal unfairness, while bolstering the government witness' courtroom identification by bringing out and dwelling upon his prior identification. Since counsel's presence at the lineup would equip him to attack not only the lineup identification but the courtroom identification as well, limiting the impact of violation of the right…