Wrong Trigger For Consistent Statements
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Evidence1
Example wrong choices
17140_paul_discrimination_email · EVIDENCE · Choice BExclude the email because prior consistent statements are never admissible.
Why it's attractive
FRE 801(d)(1)(B) exists precisely to make qualifying prior consistent statements 'not hearsay.' 'Never' is falsified by the rule's text. Cut immediately.
Why it's wrong
FRE 801(d)(1)(B) exists precisely to make qualifying prior consistent statements 'not hearsay.' 'Never' is falsified by the rule's text. Cut immediately.
17140_paul_discrimination_email · EVIDENCE · Choice CAdmit the email only if the defense first presents reputation evidence that Paul is untruthful.
Why it's attractive
FRE 801(d)(1)(B) is triggered by a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive — full stop. No reputation-evidence foundation is required. This choice imports a condition from a different impeachment doctrine (FRE 608(a)) that has no role here.
Why it's wrong
FRE 801(d)(1)(B) is triggered by a charge of recent fabrication or improper motive — full stop. No reputation-evidence foundation is required. This choice imports a condition from a different impeachment doctrine (FRE 608(a)) that has no role here.
17140_paul_discrimination_email · EVIDENCE · Choice DAdmit the email only to show that Paul told the same story before trial, not as evidence that the discriminatory comment was actually made.
Why it's attractive
After cutting B and C, D clashes with A. D is true that the email is admitted — but it limits the use to showing Paul repeated the story, not for truth. The half-truth omits that FRE 801(d)(1)(B) says the statement is 'not hearsay,' which means it IS admitted for truth. Stopping at 'credibility only' leaves the rule's most important work undone.
Why it's wrong
After cutting B and C, D clashes with A. D is true that the email is admitted — but it limits the use to showing Paul repeated the story, not for truth. The half-truth omits that FRE 801(d)(1)(B) says the statement is 'not hearsay,' which means it IS admitted for truth. Stopping at 'credibility only' leaves the rule's most important work undone.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →