Dominic L. Ruiz v. United States

In 2014, this Court expanded Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 801(d)(1)(B) to allow the admission of prior consistent statements when a witness’s credibility is attacked on any ground. This expansion includes attacks based on incapacity—such as faulty memory. Before the 2014 change, this Court noted a temporal requirement: that to be admissible, the common law required a prior consistent statement to be made before the onset of the incapacity. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 156 (1995). Seven federal appeals courts have disparately analyzed whether that temporal requirement applies to the expanded Federal Rule of Evidence, some noting that it is an “open question” and “unclear.” This Court has not yet considered this issue. Here, the trial court admitted a statement even though it was made after the onset of the incapacity. The Defense attacked a witness’s capacity to testify accurately due to her severe intoxication. The Government rehabilitated her credibility with a statement she made about the events during her intoxication. The lower court sided with the Eighth Circuit and declined to apply the temporal requirement. The question presented is: Does the common law temporal requirement apply to Military/Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)(ii)?