Intro to the Federal Rules of Evidence - 46

G. Rehabilitation
1. Direct answer to the impeachment evidence
Rehabilitation evidence must directly answer the impeachment evidence.
2. Good character for truthfulness (FRE 608(a)(2))
Once a witness’s character for truthfulness has been attacked, opinion or reputation evidence showing that the witness has a good character for truthfulness is admissible.
3. Prior consistent statement
i) Inadmissible
A waste of time because the inconsistency is not removed by the fact that W made more than one consistent statement.
ii) Exception
When impeached by allegation of improper motive (801(d)(1)(B)).
However, the rule makes these consistent statements substantive evidence rather than evidence merely affecting credibility.

EXAMPLE: (on cross)
Q: You say today that the defendant’s truck had the green light?
A: That’s right.
Q: One month ago you were hired by the defendant?
A: That’s right.
Q: So now you’re telling us that the defendant’s truck had the green light?
Q: Yes.
(on redirect)
Q: Let’s talk about what happened right after the accident. Did you talk to the police?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you tell the police about the light?
A: I told them the truck had the green light.
Q: That statement to the police, did that happen before you were hired by the defendant?
A: That happened almost a year before I got hired.