with intent to distribute heroin. At trial, W, who has pled guilty
to a lesser charge in return for her cooperation, testifies against D.
Her testimony includes references to D's nephew's participation
in the narcotics distribution scheme. On cross-examination D is
permitted to impeach W by introducing evidence that W's
grand jury testimony and her testimony at the trial of two other members
of the ring did not include any reference to D's nephew. On redirect
the government seeks to read portions of W's prior grand jury testimony
and the testimony from the two other trials that are consistent with the
present testimony implicating D but that do not contain any references
to D's nephew. D objects. What ruling and why? Has D
expressly or impliedly charged W with recent fabrication or improper
influence or motive? If so, has the prosecution rebutted that charge?