TTTBE #38: Early Answer for Patrons!
Added 2017-08-27 23:00:01 +0000 UTCThis week's question was apparently a difficult one; most of the people who tweeted at us guessed "A," when the answer was, in fact, C. This means Thomas is now riding high on a six-question winning streak (a new record!), and is now 21-for-38 (55.26%) -- well on his way to becoming an actual lawyer.
The relevant legal rule here is Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. Subsection (d)(1)(B) establishes that prior consistent statements are not hearsay when they (i) "rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated" their statement, or (ii) "to rehabilitate the declarant's credibility as a witness," which is pretty much the exact language used by answer "C."
Answer "A" -- that prior consistent statements cannot be admitted after a "successful impeachment has occurred" -- was incorrect because there's no such thing as a "successful impeachment;" impeachment just describes undermining a witness's credibility, and witness credibility is always an issue for the finder of fact (i.e., the jury).
Answer "B" -- that such statements "would tend to confuse the jury with too much conflicting evidence" -- was not only incorrect, but conceptually nonsensical. In general, the federal rules err on the side of admitting evidence and then exclude based on certain categories (of which hearsay is one).
Finally, Answer "D" -- that all prior statements are important" to show the consistency of witness testimony -- is also wrong. Prior statements are presumptively inadmissible hearsay but become admissible in the circumstances described in FRE 801.
Get ready for another new question on Friday when we release TTTBE #37!
