Page:Title 3 CFR 2005 Compilation.djvu/205

 EO 13387 Title 3--The President Changes to Appendix 22, Analysis of The Military Rules of Evidence (a) The Introduction to Appendix 22 is amended by inserting the following at the end of the first sentence: "(the Department under which the Coast Guard was operating at that time)." (b) The Introduction to Appendix 22 is amended by replaciug the word "Transportation" in the second paragraph with the words "Homeland Security." (c) The Analysis to M.R.E. 317(b) is amended by replacing the word "Transportation" with the words "Homeland Security." (d) The Analysis to M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(B) is amended to read as follows: "Rule 801(d)(1)(B) makes admissible on the merits a statement consistent with the in- court testimouy of the witness and "offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent t\177tbrication or improper influence or motive." Unlike Rule 80 l(d)(1)(A), which addresses prior inconsistent statements given under oath, the earlier consistent statemeut need not have been made under oath or at any type of proceeding. Rule 801(d)(1)(B) provides in pertinent part that a statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. The court has interpreted the rule to require that a prior statement, admitted as substantive evidence, precede any motive to fabricate or improper influence that it is offered to rebut. United States v. Allison, 49 M.J. 54, 57 (C.A.A.F. 1998). Where multiple motives to fabricate or multiple improper influences are asserted, the statement need not precede all such motives or inferences, but only the one it is ofl\177red to rebut. United States v. Faison, 49 M.J. 59, 63 (C.A.A.F. 1998). This interpretation of the rule is consistent with the Supreme Court% decision in Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 159 (1995)." 192

�