Also known as: prior consistent statement · prior consistent statement rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of out-of-court statement by a testifying witness treated as nonhearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) when offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. The statement must have been made before the alleged motive arose to qualify for admission.
Peter Park testifies that he warned his supervisor about safety issues weeks before an accident. On cross-examination the defense implies Park invented the warnings only after learning the company might blame him. Park offers an earlier email repeating the same warning. The court excludes the email because it was sent after Park already faced possible discipline and thus after the alleged motive arose.
Priscilla Parks testifies she reported a leaking refrigeration unit to her manager six weeks before a customer slip-and-fall. Defense counsel suggests on cross that Parks fabricated the reports only after learning of the lawsuit. Parks offers her earlier complaint logs that match her testimony and predate any lawsuit. The court admits the logs as nonhearsay to rebut the recent-fabrication charge.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Phuong Pham testifies she flagged a design flaw in internal reports while still on the project team. The defense implies on cross that Pham changed her account only after reassignment. Pham offers the earlier reports and emails that match her testimony. The court admits the documents as nonhearsay because they predate the alleged motive tied to the reassignment.
The declarant must testify at trial and be subject to cross-examination about the statement. The prior statement must be consistent with the declarant's trial testimony. The statement must be offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.
Supporting sources
A statement made after the motive arose cannot show that the witness held the same view before any improper influence existed. The timing requirement ensures the statement has independent probative value to rebut the charge of recent fabrication rather than merely bolstering credibility after the fact.
Supporting sources
No. Unlike certain prior inconsistent statements, a prior consistent statement offered to rebut recent fabrication need not have been sworn or made in a formal proceeding. An informal email, log entry, or oral report suffices if the other conditions are met.
Supporting sources
The statement may still be admissible if it predates the specific motive alleged during cross-examination. Courts focus on whether the statement rebuts the particular charge raised at trial rather than every conceivable earlier motive.
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…