MSNBC on Blackwater Murder Verdict

by Jamison Koehler on October 25, 2014


Just because you repeat something over and over does not make it true.  Nor are you permitted to “bolster” your own witness.

A “prior consistent statement” – a witness’ previous statement that is consistent with something the witness testifies to while on the stand – is generally inadmissible.  If it is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter, it is hearsay and can only be admitted through some type of hearsay exception.  Generally, it is also deemed irrelevant.  As the D.C. Court of Appeals has put it, “[m]ere repetition does not imply veracity.”

An exception to the rule against prior consistent statements is when the statement is “offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the witness of recent fabrication or improper influences or motives.”  In other words, the statement can become relevant – and therefore admissible – the moment the witness’ testimony is impeached.  This assumes that (1) the witness is subject to cross-examination and (2) the statement was made at a time before the witness had a motive to fabricate.   If both these conditions are satisfied, the statement falls within an exception to the hearsay rule and can be offered as substantive evidence (that is, it can be offered as the truth).

In Julius L. Worthy v. United States, ___ A.3d ___ (D.C. 2014), the trial court admitted into evidence the prior consistent statement by the complaining witness that the defendant had hit her several times in the face, as charged, and that he had threatened to kill her.  This was after the complainant had testified to these allegations on direct examination.  Moreover, it was after the defense had impeached the complainant with her statement to another detective that the defendant had not done anything to her.

All the requirements for admitting the complainant’s prior consistent statement were satisfied in this case.  First, the complainant was subject to cross-examination while testifying.  Second, she had been impeached with her statement to the detective that the defendant had not done anything to her.  Finally, the “impeaching event” – her statement to the detective – occurred in the intervening period between the prior consistent statement and her trial testimony.

The D.C. Court of Appeals then went beyond this rather narrow ruling.  Specifically, it held that prior consistent statements are admissible to rehabilitate a witness whenever “the facts and circumstances have particular relevance in refuting the theory of impeachment that has been advanced.”


“I Make Over Six Figures A Year. What Am I Doing Here?”

October 14, 2014 DUI and Driving Offenses

Guest Post by Tyler Wolff* These are the first words that went through my head when the jury found me guilty of my second DUI.  The first one was a dangerous mistake:  I was young, underage, drinking with a fake ID, and hadn’t consumed much alcohol in my life up to that point.  Really, growing […]

Read the full article →

Thank You For Your Vote Of Confidence

October 9, 2014 Juveniles

Dear Juvenile Client: You must think I am one really, really good lawyer. Why else would you violate every condition of your pre-trial probation — knowing that this would result in your being locked up until forever — unless you were absolutely convinced that I was going to beat the case? You are the boss. […]

Read the full article →

Lawyer Advertising: The “Texas Law Hawk”

October 3, 2014 Law Marketing/Networking

H/T A Public Defender

Read the full article →

Life Lessons for My Law Practice

October 2, 2014 Law Practice

I am in Nairobi.  Kenya is famous, among other things, for its malachite jewelry, and I would like to buy my wife a malachite necklace.  I check at the hotel store and see that the necklaces there sell for well over $100.  So I go out to a market on the street with cash. A […]

Read the full article →

You Are Not A Professional Criminal

September 30, 2014 Criminal Procedure

You should not feel bad. Believe me, you are not the first person to be fooled by police into making a statement or doing something else incriminating.  Remember:  They are professionals.  They are good at what they do.  And you are not a professional criminal.  Lots of educated, savvy and sophisticated people have fallen for […]

Read the full article →

D.C. Police to Wear Body Cameras

September 28, 2014 Current Events

The Metropolitan Police Department will begin a pilot program this week in which police officers will be outfitted with body cameras to record their interactions with civilians. According to the Washington Post, 165 officers will be equipped with a camera on either their shirt or glasses. The purpose of this program is to “increase public […]

Read the full article →

In Defense of a Well-Timed Stink

September 21, 2014 Trial Advocacy

Clients love the courtroom theatrics. There was a criminal defense lawyer in Philadelphia – I will call him Larry — who could put on the best show you have ever seen.  Larry was fearless and he was funny.  He would talk back to the judge.  He would dress down the prosecutor for interrupting him:  “You […]

Read the full article →

“Leteracy Night”

September 5, 2014 Humor
Read the full article →