U.S. v. Echols

Defendant was found guilty of attempting to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred by relying on FRE 801(d)(1)(B) to admit testimony about a witness’s prior consistent statements after the defense suggested that the witness fabricated her testimony. Defendant argued that the prior inconsistent statement was made after the witness’s alleged motive to fabricate had already arisen and that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) requires prior consistent statements to be made prior to the motive to fabricate. The Seventh Circuit found that defendant forfeited the issue on appeal for failing to raise it on trial and even though admission of the prior statement was error, under a plain error review it was not prejudicial. (EASTERBROOK and KOLAR, concurring)