R v Burkhard: The Dangers of Misidentifying Prior Consistent Statements by J Peterson
Prior consistent statements are presumptively inadmissible. There are a number of rationales served by this rule, including protection against fabrication, the danger of statements that cannot be cross-examined, the fallacy that repetition makes a story more trustworthy, and the objective of trial efficiency. However, there are a number of recognized exceptions to this rule including providing a consistent narrative, addressing inconsistencies, and rebutting allegations of re
