Home › MCQs › Federal Rules of Evidence (US) › Question #3794
Back to Questions
Federal Rules of Evidence (US) QUESTION #3794
Question 1
During a civil trial, a witness for the plaintiff testifies. On cross, the defense asks a question that implies the witness is lying because he was paid a bribe by the plaintiff. On redirect, the plaintiff offers a statement the witness made to his wife *before* the alleged bribe was paid, which is consistent with his trial testimony. Is the statement admissible?
  • No, it's hearsay.
  • Yes, as non-hearsay to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive under Rule 801(d)(1)(B).✔️
  • No, because the statement was made to his wife and is privileged.
  • Yes, but only for impeachment and not as substantive evidence.
Correct Answer Explanation
Rule 801(d)(1)(B) defines as 'not hearsay' a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence/motive, provided the statement was made *before* the motive to lie arose.