Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 801(d)(1)(B) - prior consistent statements

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 [e-mail].
©Wes R. Porter 2020. All rights reserved.

[@bradleybeck9638]

Just got to say thank you! Your three videos on Rule 801(d) have been very helpful for me.

[@professorporter]

Glad you like them!

[@nataliazepeda2020]

literally so helpful thank you

[@urjitagokhale]

You are the best! Thank you so much professor.

[@pbetftdi]

Studying for the bar.. very helpful video.

[@Basil-Caesarea]

Professor, thank you.

[@abigailhester6379]

So helpful! Thank you

[@professorporter]

You are so welcome!

[@hawarose7396]

All I can say is Ooooooooooo thank you

[@DeAngeloDowning-rl3te]

bf801d

[@WhitneyGreer84]

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?

[@professorporter]

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.”