THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
Go to Shellow
Collection Table of Contents
Limited Purpose Evidence: Prior Consistent Statements
1.
Prior Consistent Statement: Not Offered For Truth
2. Prior Consistent
Statement: Repetition Of Statement Or Record Does Not
Increase The Likelihood
That It Is True
3. Prior Consistent
Statements Not Evidence Of Facts Or Corroboration
4. Defendant's Prior
Consistent Oral And Written Statements
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
1. Prior Consistent Statements: Not Offered For Truth
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
On some occasions the Court has admitted testimony of a witness concerning his own prior consistent statements. This testimony was not admitted for the truth of these prior statements but merely for the fact that they had been made; these prior statements were inadmissible as hearsay if they were offered for their truth.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Check, 582 F.2d 668, 677 (2d Cir. 1978).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994); United States v. Curley, Case No. 93-CR-86-S (W.D. Wis. 1994).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses Generally.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC 26.4 [Prior Consistent Statements].
See NCJIC 26.4.1 [Prior Consistent Statements: Purpose And Scope Of Instruction].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
2. Prior Consistent Statement: Repetition Of Statement Or Record Does Not Increase The Likelihood That It Is True
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
A witness who has given a statement or made a record of a transaction and later testifies to that statement or record is not more credible merely because (he/she) has said or written the same thing twice. Mere repetition does not increase the likelihood that the statement or record is true.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Blankenship, 784 F.2d 317 (8th Cir. 1986); United States v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782 (8th Cir. 1980); Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) (prior consistent statements admissible only to rebut charge of recent fabrication, or improper influence or motive).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
A previous out-of-court statement by a witness which is consistent with his or her testimony at trial is not corroborative of the trial testimony because mere repetition of a statement does not imply veracity.
AUTHORITY:
Coltrane v. United States, 418 F.2d 1131, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 1969).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses Generally.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC 26.4 [Prior Consistent Statements].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
3. Prior Consistent Statements Not Evidence Of Facts Or Corroboration
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
In some instances the Court has allowed the jury to hear prior statements of a witness which appear to be consistent with the witness's testimony upon the stand. Such prior statements are not evidence of the facts which they state nor are they corroborative of the testimony of the witness on the stand unless there have been charges of recent fabrication by the witness or improper influence or motive and then such prior consistent statements may be considered as evidence only when the statements were made prior to a time of a supposed motive to falsify.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Quinto, 582 F.2d 224, 233 (2d Cir. 1978).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Kramer, No. 81-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1982).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
Unless there have been charges of recent fabrication, a witness's prior consistent statements are not proof of their contents.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Check, 582 F.2d 668, 681 (2d Cir. 1978).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses Generally.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC 26.4 [Prior Consistent Statements].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
4. Defendant's Prior Consistent Oral And Written Statements
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
You have heard evidence that __________ (name of defendant) allegedly made a statement at an earlier time inconsistent with (his/her) testimony at trial. You also have received __________’s (name of defendant) written statement, which you can find is consistent with (his/her) testimony here at trial.
I have admitted __________’s (name of defendant) written statement into evidence because you may conclude that this written statement rebuts the state's express or implied charge against __________ (name of defendant) that he fabricated (his/her) testimony after making statements to the police, or that (he/she) has an improper motive in testifying here at trial. In this regard, you may give the written statement and any other statements you find that __________ (name of defendant) made voluntarily such weight as you think they deserve.
AUTHORITIES:
Wis. Stat. §908.01(4)(a)2; Vogel v. State, 96 Wis. 2d 372, 291 N.W.2d 838 (1980).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses Generally.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC 26.4 [Prior Consistent Statements].