A case to look out for.
United States v. Frost, No. 18-0362/AR
Issue: Whether the military judge erred in admitting hearsay statements as prior consistent statements under Mil.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(i) where the defense theory posited the improper influence or motive preceded the allegedly consistent statements.
The Court will hear oral argument, in this case, tomorrow (9 April 2019). It’s an important case. Whenever the defense questions a prosecution witness, especially a complaining witness, the prosecution then offers every statement, oral or written, the witness made. The judge usually agrees the statements are admissible–thus, there’s a huge hole, IMHO, in the prosecutions right to rehabilitate a witness. I should note that the rule applies equally to a defense witness including the accused. So if you have an accused who wants to testify and he did a good MCIO interrogation, consider the value of then offering that interview once the prosecution has engaged in cross-examination.