United States v. Yvonne Harris and Josephine Harris

How courts have described this case

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

• “[Although a prior consistent statement may meet the literal requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(B), it may nonetheless be inadmissible for failure to meet the relevancy requirement of Rule 402.”
• despite presence of motive to fabricate, which barred admission under Rule 801(d)(1)(B

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).