2.15 Prior Consistent Statements (F.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B)) You evidence that, before (just heard)(are about to hear) (he)(she) testified in this trial, made statements that were the same as, or similar (name) to, what said in the courtroom. You may consider evidence of this (he)(she) statement in determining the facts of this case. In addition, this evidence may help you decide whether you believe testimony. If said (name)’s (name) essentially the same thing before trial, it may be reason for you to believe testimony in court. (name)’s Comment This instruction is based on Federal Judicial Center § 34. A prior consistent statement can be offered as substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence if it offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant “is recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so This instruction informs the jurors that they may use the prior consistent testifying.” statement both to decide the case and to bolster the in-court testimony. Caution: This instruction should not be given routinely. The prior consistent statements are admitted without limitation, so the jury can consider them in any way it deems relevant. The significance of the prior consistent statements should generally be left to argument of counsel. However, this instruction should be included if prior inconsistent statements are admitted solely to impeach in the same trial as the prior consistent statements. This instruction is then necessary to distinguish the unlimited role of prior consistent statements from the limited role of prior inconsistent statements admitted only to impeach. Instruction 2.16 (Impeachment of Witness - Prior See Inconsistent Statement for Credibility Only).
2.15 Prior Consistent Statements (F.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B)) You (just heard)(are about to hear) evidence that, before (he)(she) testified in this trial, (name) made statements that were the same as, or similar to, what (he)(she) said in the courtroom. You may consider evidence of this statement in determining the facts of this case. In addition, this evidence may help you decide whether you believe (name)’s testimony. If (name) said essentially the same thing before trial, it may be reason for you to believe (name)’s testimony in court. Comment This instruction is based on Federal Judicial Center § 34. A prior consistent statement can be offered as substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence if it “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.” This instruction informs the jurors that they may use the prior consistent statement both to decide the case and to bolster the in-court testimony. Caution: This instruction should not be given routinely. The prior consistent statements are admitted without limitation, so the jury can consider them in any way it deems relevant. The significance of the prior consistent statements should generally be left to argument of counsel. However, this instruction should be included if prior inconsistent statements are admitted solely to impeach in the same trial as the prior consistent statements. This instruction is then necessary to distinguish the unlimited role of prior consistent statements from the limited role of prior inconsistent statements admitted only to impeach. See Instruction 2.16 (Impeachment of Witness - Prior Inconsistent Statement for Credibility Only).
2014%20Chapter%202%20final.docx