/ef ar ee eight oh one dee one bee one bee eye/·rule
Also known as:Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(i) · prior consistent statement · Rule 801(d)(1)(B)(i)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule classifying a testifying witness's prior consistent statement as nonhearsay when the statement rebuts an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper motive and was made before that motive arose.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
How it applies
Common Examples
3
Voice Message Predates Investigation
Francois Fortier testified that Northern Lines mechanics routinely skipped brake inspections on the bus involved in the crash. On cross-examination Northern Lines suggested Fortier invented the claim only after the company began investigating his work following the crash. Fortier offered a December 20 voice message he left describing the skipped inspections. The message predated both the January 15 crash and the post-crash investigation that supplied the alleged motive, so the court admitted it as nonhearsay to rebut the fabrication charge.
Encrypted Chats Precede Lawsuit
Felipe Figueroa testified that West Stack's CTO directed him to copy a rival's proprietary code months before termination. On cross-examination West Stack suggested Figueroa fabricated the account only after deciding to sue and consulting counsel. Figueroa offered January encrypted chat messages to a colleague describing the directive. The chats predated both the February firing and the March retention of counsel that supplied the alleged motive, so the court admitted them as nonhearsay to rebut the fabrication charge.
Gilbert v. California388 U.S. 263 (1967)
Email Precedes Commission Loss
Farah Fox testified that Dusk Land's agent repeatedly downplayed mold reports before the apartment-complex closing. On cross-examination Dusk Land suggested Fox invented the warnings only after losing her commission when the deal collapsed. Fox offered a six-weeks-earlier email to a colleague stating that the agent kept downplaying the mold reports. The email predated the collapse and commission loss that supplied the alleged motive, so the court admitted it as nonhearsay to rebut the fabrication charge.
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey499 U.S. 153 (1988)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
What timing requirement must a prior consistent statement satisfy under FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(i)?+
The prior consistent statement must have been made before the alleged motive to fabricate or improper influence arose. This timing ensures the statement carries independent probative value to rebut the charge rather than reflecting the motive itself.
Supporting sources
Does an earlier performance review automatically bar admission of a later prior consistent statement under the rule?+
No. The rule focuses on whether the statement predates the specific motive placed in issue by the cross-examination. An unalleged earlier motive may affect weight but does not prevent admission when the statement rebuts the motive actually suggested at trial.
Must the prior consistent statement be identical in every detail to the trial testimony?+
No. The statement need only be consistent with the testimony on the material point at issue. Minor differences in wording or emphasis do not disqualify it when the core account matches and the timing requirement is satisfied.
Supporting sources
Can a prior consistent statement admitted under the rule be considered for its truth?+
Yes. Once the four statutory conditions are met the statement is defined as nonhearsay and may be used both to rehabilitate credibility and as substantive evidence of the matter asserted.
Supporting sources
What distinguishes FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(i) from FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii)?+
Subsection (i) requires a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive and a statement made before that motive arose. Subsection (ii) permits rehabilitation on other credibility attacks such as bias or inconsistency without the same timing precondition.
Supporting sources
is more accurately determined by evaluating the strength of the motive to lie, the circumstances in which the
statement
is made, and the declarant's demonstrated propensity to lie." Ibid.…
EvidencePresentation of evidence · Impeachment, contradiction, and rehabilitationUBEFoundational