This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was convicted of aggravated sexual abuse. D appealed the admissibility of the hearsay statements relayed by six witnesses. Each witness related out-of-court statements made by the child victim (A.T.). The appeals court affirmed concluding that the testimony of these witnesses was admissible because it was not hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The government offered the testimony to rebut D's implied charge that the victim fabricated her allegations. Thus, even though A.T. made the statements after her alleged motive to fabricate had arisen, the statements were prior consistent statements admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B). The United States Supreme Court reversed. It held that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) 'permits the introduction of a declarant's consistent out-of-court statements to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive only when those statements were made before the charged recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.' The case was remanded. On remand, the court must first determine whether the challenged evidence could have been admitted under another rule of evidence.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.