Also known as: Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1) · Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1) · FRE 801(d)(1)(A) · FRE 801(d)(1)(B) · FRE 801(d)(1)(C) · hearsay exclusion prior witness statements · prior consistent statement · prior inconsistent statement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence that classifies three categories of prior statements by a testifying witness as nonhearsay. The categories include prior inconsistent statements given under penalty of perjury, prior consistent statements offered to rebut charges of recent fabrication or improper motive, and statements identifying a person after perceiving that person.
Felicia Fuentes sued Flagship Logistics after a warehouse accident. At trial Flagship offered a note Fuentes wrote describing the same events to show consistency in her account. The court admitted the note under the rule because it rebutted an implied charge of recent fabrication.
Fumiko Fujimoto testified that a product caused her injury. The defense suggested on cross that her consulting fees created a motive to exaggerate. Fujimoto offered a clinic note written the same day as the original conversation. The note was admitted because it predated the alleged motive and rebutted the charge of recent fabrication.
Felicity French testified at trial that she saw the defendant at the scene. The defense offered her earlier statement denying any recollection. The court admitted the prior statement as nonhearsay under the rule after confirming it was inconsistent and given under oath.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Francesca Fowler testified that a contract contained no veto clause. The plaintiff offered Fowler's earlier deposition testimony given under oath that the clause had been discussed. The court treated the deposition as nonhearsay and admitted it for its truth because it was inconsistent with Fowler's trial testimony.
Fabian Flynn testified about events at a company meeting. The defense charged that his new consulting arrangement created bias. Flynn offered a podcast recorded after the arrangement began. The court excluded the podcast for rebutting fabrication because it postdated the alleged motive.
Fatima Flores identified the defendant at trial as the person who struck her. The prosecution offered a lineup identification she made the day after the incident. The court admitted the lineup statement as nonhearsay because it was an identification made after perceiving the defendant.
A prior consistent statement is admissible when it rebuts an express or implied charge that the witness recently fabricated testimony or acted from an improper motive. The statement must predate the alleged motive.
Supporting sources
The rule requires only that the statement predate the specific motive alleged by the opponent.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule permits consistent statements to rehabilitate credibility when the attack rests on any ground other than recent fabrication or improper motive.
Supporting sources
Yes for substantive use under 801(d)(1)(A). The statement must have been given under penalty of perjury at a trial hearing or other proceeding or in a deposition. Statements not meeting that requirement may still be used for impeachment under other rules.
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…