How does EAC 102 regard previous consistent statements when determining their admissibility?

Previous consistent statements are statements made by a witness before the events in question that are consistent with their testimony. Under EAC 102, these statements generally are not admissible for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted if their relevance is solely related to the witness's credibility. This means that if the only reason for introducing these statements is to bolster the witness's reliability or character, they would not be allowed in court.

This rule reflects a key principle in evidence law known as the rule against hearsay, where statements made outside of court are not admissible to prove the truth of what is asserted in those statements, unless they fit into specific exceptions. While previous consistent statements may be relevant to the witness's credibility and could add support to their account, their use is limited to contexts where competing narratives arise that could affect the credibility aspect of the testimony.

In terms of the other options, there are distinctions that clarify why they are deemed incorrect. For example, suggesting that previous consistent statements are always allowed to prove the truth does not account for the limitations imposed by EAC 102 regarding credibility alone. Mandating their use in all cases fails to recognize the judicial discretion exercised on the admissibility of evidence based on the case's specific circumstances. Lastly