Also known as: FRE 801(d)(1)(B) · Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) · 801(d)(1)(B) · prior consistent statement · nonhearsay prior statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence that classifies a prior consistent statement as nonhearsay when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination. The statement must be consistent with the declarant's testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive. The statement qualifies only if made before the alleged motive to lie or exaggerate arose.
Investor plaintiffs called analyst Carlos Rivera to testify that he had warned senior partners about misleading prospectuses before an offering. On cross-examination defense counsel suggested Rivera invented the warnings only after being passed over for promotion. Plaintiffs then offered Rivera's earlier email repeating the same warnings. The court admitted the email because it predated the suggested motive and directly countered the charge of recent fabrication.
Control-room technician Luis Ramirez testified that he warned his supervisor about abnormal pressure readings hours before a gas explosion. Defense counsel suggested on cross that Ramirez began claiming the warning only after facing possible discipline. Plaintiffs offered Ramirez's pre-explosion incident log and email that matched his testimony. The court admitted the documents as nonhearsay because they preceded the alleged motive and rebutted the fabrication charge.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Edward testified that his company's CTO had directed him to copy a rival's code months before his termination. Defense counsel suggested on cross that Edward fabricated the account only after deciding to sue and consulting counsel. Edward offered screenshots of January encrypted messages to a coworker describing the same instruction. The court admitted the messages because they predated the litigation motive and were consistent with his trial testimony.
The declarant must testify and be subject to cross-examination. The statement must be consistent with the testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive. The statement must also have been made before the alleged motive arose.
Supporting sources
No. Unlike prior inconsistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), prior consistent statements offered to rebut recent fabrication need not have been made under oath or in a formal proceeding.
Supporting sources
The statement remains admissible if it rebuts the specific motive placed in issue by the cross-examination. An unalleged earlier motive goes to weight rather than admissibility.
Supporting sources
Yes. Once the rule's conditions are met the statement is classified as nonhearsay and may be considered substantively as well as for rehabilitation.
Supporting sources
…prior to October 1981. [^maj-6]: In the alternative the court held that Rainey's testimony should have been admitted as a prior consistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). [^maj-7]: Baker involved a police officer's report on an automobile accident. While there was no direct witness as to the color of the traffic lights at the…