Under Rule 801(d)(1), when are a declarant’s prior statements not hearsay if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination?

• A. If the statements are inconsistent with the declarant's current oath, consistent and offered to rehabilitate, or an identification made after perceiving the person.
• B. If the statements are in writing.
• C. If the declarant is unavailable to testify.
• D. If the statements were given under oath at a prior proceeding.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that under Rule 801(d)(1), a declarant’s prior statements are not hearsay when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination if the statements fall into one of three categories: (1) prior inconsistent statements made under oath at a prior proceeding, (2) prior consistent statements offered to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility when it has been attacked, and (3) statements identifying a person after perceiving them.

Think through each category. A prior inconsistent statement is one the declarant made before that contradicts what they’re saying now, and it must have been given under oath at a prior trial, hearing, or deposition. Because it was sworn, it’s reliable as substantive evidence and can be introduced even though it’s the declarant’s own prior words. A prior consistent statement is different: it supports the declarant’s current testimony to repair credibility, but only when the declarant’s honesty has been challenged. The statement must be consistent with what the declarant testifies to now and it helps if the statement was made before any motive to lie arose. Lastly, an identification of a person—made after the declarant perceived them—can be admitted as non-hearsay because it’s the declarant’s own recognition, not a claim about the truth of a past event.

So the best answer is the one that lists all three permissible pathways: prior inconsistent statements made under oath, prior consistent statements offered to rehabilitate credibility, and prior identifications. The other options fall short because merely being in writing, or the declarant being unavailable, or only one subcategory (like an oath at a prior proceeding) does not fully capture the rule’s scope.