Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Note whether the statement is a prior inconsistent

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: trier of fact should be able to decide which version to believe (the version given at trial or the version given before hand) Rationale for this rule. Prior Statement by Witness Consistent Statements [FRE 801(d)(1)(B)] FRE 801(d)(1)(B): Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if (1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to crossexamination concerning the statement, and the statement is ....(B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. Ex: Admissible. On cross-examination of Price, D's attorney challenged the witness' recollection of events: "Mr. Price, your memory gets better with time doesn't it?" ON redirect, the court granted the Government's motion to admit written statements Price had given to police [shortly after the crime]. The prior written statements were consistent with Price's testimony on the stand recounting the sequence of events at the carjacking....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online