Jan. 31 – EvidenceProf Blog
Professor Colin Miller authored blog
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) indicates that
A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(1) A Declarant-Witness’s Prior Statement. The declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination about a prior statement, and the statement:
(B) is consistent with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying; or
Meanwhile, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) indicates that
A statement is not hearsay if–(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is…consistent with the declarant’s testimony and helpful to the trier of fact in evaluating the declarant’s credibility as a witness…
The recent opinion of the Court of Appeals of Minnesota in State v. Johnson, 2012 WL 254476 (Minn.App. 2012), reveals the problem that I have with Minnesota’s version of Rule 801(d)(1)(B).
Read more: Does Minnesota’s Prior Consistent Statement Rule Make Sense?
