Municipal Investigating Committee v. Servello

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• no error in admitting witness’ prior consistent video-recorded statement “[b]ecause the thrust of [appellant’s] cross-examination was a charge that [the witness] fabricated a different version of events after giving his written statement”
• no error in admitting witness’s prior consistent statement, where, while cross-examining witness, defendant implied that witness fabricated his testimony and suggested that witness’s trial testimony and his prior statement were inconsistent
• admission of witness’s prior consistent statement was proper where, while 17 cross-examining witness, defense counsel implied that witness fabricated his testimony and suggested that witness’s trial testimony and his prior statement were inconsistent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).