When can a prior consistent statement be used to rehabilitate a witness?

• A. Only after motive arises
• B. When credibility attacked by a prior inconsistent statement; the prior consistent statement may rehabilitate if made before the motive to lie arose
• C. Only if the witness is an expert
• D. Never

Answer: (B)

When a witness’s credibility has been challenged by a prior inconsistent statement, you can use a prior consistent statement to rehabilitate, but with a specific timing condition: the prior consistent statement must have been made before any motive to lie arose. The idea is that the witness had a steady, unmotivated account before the incentive to fabricate appeared, which supports their trustworthiness and counters the suggestion they’re fabricating after the fact.

This is why the answer is best: it captures both the purpose of rehabilitation (to bolster credibility when it’s been attacked) and the crucial timing requirement (the consistent statement must predate the motive to lie). If the prior consistent statement is made after the motive to lie has arisen, it doesn’t serve to rehabilitate in the same way and may be treated differently under the rule.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: credibility rehabilitation isn’t limited to expert witnesses, so requiring expert status is incorrect. It isn’t about statements made after the motive arises being allowed to rehabilitate—that would undermine the aim of showing pre-existing consistency. And saying rehabilitation is allowed only after motive arises ignores the established need for the pre-motive timing to ensure the statement wasn’t manufactured in response to the motive to lie.