Also known as: FRE 801(d)(1)(C) · Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(C) · Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) · prior identification · statement of identification
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence that classifies a prior out-of-court identification as nonhearsay. The rule applies when the declarant testifies at trial and remains subject to cross-examination about the statement, and the statement identifies a person the declarant perceived earlier.
Roland Rhodes testified at trial that he could not recall the details of a robbery he witnessed six months earlier. The prosecution called a detective to recount that Rhodes had selected the defendant from a photo array two days after the crime. Defense counsel cross-examined Rhodes about his current lack of memory and the circumstances of the earlier selection. The court admitted the detective's testimony as substantive evidence of the identification.
Robert Rivera testified at trial that he caught only a brief glimpse of an assailant fleeing a parking garage. The prosecution offered testimony from an officer that Rivera had selected the defendant's photograph from an array hours after the attack. Defense counsel cross-examined Rivera about possible influences from hospital staff discussions. The court admitted the officer's account of the selection as substantive proof of identity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ruby Rivera testified at trial that she had viewed a police lineup weeks after a bank robbery. The prosecution introduced an officer's testimony that Ruby had identified the defendant at the lineup by pointing to him and stating his name. Defense counsel cross-examined Ruby about her opportunity to observe the robber during the crime. The court allowed the officer's testimony as nonhearsay evidence of the identification.
Ronald Reed testified at trial that he recognized a shoplifter from security footage shown shortly after the incident. The prosecution called a store manager to recount that Reed had identified the defendant by name while watching the video the same day. Defense counsel cross-examined Reed about his familiarity with the defendant as a regular customer. The court admitted the manager's testimony as substantive evidence.
Ryan Roberts testified at trial that he saw a driver bypass a brake inspection but could not describe facial features months later. The prosecution offered testimony from a safety manager that Roberts had selected the defendant's photograph from a stack of company photos the next day. Defense counsel cross-examined Roberts about the suggestiveness of the procedure. The court admitted the manager's account as nonhearsay proof of the identification.
No. The rule requires only that the declarant testify at trial and remain subject to cross-examination about the statement. Memory loss does not destroy that availability, so the prior identification remains admissible as nonhearsay.
Supporting sources
No. The rule text requires only that the statement identify a person the declarant perceived earlier. An identification made to an insurance investigator or safety manager satisfies the language when the declarant testifies and faces cross-examination.
Supporting sources
No. The rule contains no exclusivity or purity requirement. Intervening exposure or external information may affect weight but does not remove the statement from the nonhearsay category when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule defines qualifying statements as nonhearsay, so they are admissible for their truth. Cross-examination at trial supplies the safeguard that permits substantive use.
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…