Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 801(d)(1)(B) - prior consistent statements
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- WELCOME to my “Federal Rules of Evidence” program for students interested in the evidentiary rules that govern trials in federal court. "Federal Rules of Evidence" is a series of 12 playlists (with many videos) designed to introduce viewers to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), as well as evidentiary concepts and arguments under the FRE. The 12 playlist topics are set out below in this description.
This playlist covers FRE Rules in Article VIII (Hearsay definition and exemptions). This video covers NOT hearsay defined - prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) - and this playlist (organized by FRE rule/concept) features the following videos:
Article VIII. Hearsay generally - policy
Article VIII. Hearsay generally - witness quoting others
Rule 801(a)-(c). [Hearsay] Definitions:
[no FRE] Not for “truth of the matter asserted” - Top 5 definitional arguments
Article VII. Objection, hearsay - Does the question call for hearsay?
Rule 801(d). Exclusions from hearsay - generally
Rule 801(d)(1)(A). Prior inconsistent statements - admissible for the truth
Rule 801(d)(1)(B). Prior Consistent Statements [after recent charge of fabrication]
Rule 801(d)(2)(A). Statements by Party Opponents
Rule 801(d)(2)(B-D). Statements Attributed to Party Opponents - adopted, authorized, agent
Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Statements Attributed to Party Opponents - Conspirators
The channel features several videos within each of these 12 playlists:
Intro to FRE Rules & Concepts *(start here)*
Articles I & II - General & Judicial Notice.
Article IV - Relevance & 403
Article IV - Policy rules
Article IV - Character evidence
Article V - Privileges
Article IV - Witnesses
Article IV - Impeachment
Article VII - Opinion testimony
Article VIII - Hearsay - definition/exemptions
Article VIII - Hearsay - exceptions
Articles IX & X - Authentication & Original doc
ABOUT ME:
Professor Wes Porter served as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, Fraud Section, in Washington D.C., the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii and the JAG Corps for the U.S. Navy stationed in the Trial Service Office Pacific. After lecturing and teaching as an adjunct professor for years, he moved to academia full-time teaching courses in Evidence, Criminal Law and Procedure, and skills courses like Trial Advocacy. Professor Porter earned tenure, became a full professor of law, and led a center devoted to evidence, litigation and trial skills training.
Professor Porter still teaches in law schools and trains lawyers new to the profession. To contact Professor Porter with questions or video topic requests, you may email him at wesreberporter@gmail.com.
©Wes R. Porter 2020. All rights reserved.
literally so helpful thank you
Just got to say thank you! Your three videos on Rule 801(d) have been very helpful for me.
Glad you like them!
You are the best! Thank you so much professor.
Studying for the bar.. very helpful video.
Professor, thank you.
So helpful! Thank you
You are so welcome!
bf801d
All I can say is Ooooooooooo thank you
Hi what about statements an “in shock +traumatized” victim of crime makes just hours after being in the ER?.... It’s okay if those statements made to the intake patrol officers when they go into her apartment and she feels frightened.... vs how she details things to a Detective later... should be considered “inconsistency” right?
These are arguments, not concrete answers. So, yes, the opponent may argue inconsistencies between statements made at different times and under different circumstances. Yet, the proponent would argue that the statements are not inconsistent, even if one is more detailed. Do keep in mind that inconsistent statements under this rule must be made under oath and at a “proceeding.”