What can be introduced on redirect examination for rehabilitating a witness?

The correct response is that prior consistent statements can be introduced on redirect examination to rehabilitate a witness. This is grounded in the purpose of redirect examination, which is to clarify or rebut attacks on the witness's credibility that may have arisen during cross-examination.

Prior consistent statements are particularly valuable because they establish that the witness's account has remained unchanged over time, suggesting that the testimony is credible and not fabricated. This type of evidence is critical when the witness's credibility is challenged, as it shows that their statements were consistent before any motive to fabricate could arise.

The option regarding new witnesses does not align with the rehabilitative purpose of redirect examination, as the primary focus is on the existing witness rather than introducing entirely new testimony. Reputation evidence generally pertains to a witness's character rather than directly reinforcing their prior statements and is typically limited in scope. Lastly, stating that all forms of external evidence can be introduced lacks specificity and overlooks the standard rules that govern what can competently rehabilitate a witness; not all forms of evidence may be permissible or relevant in this specific context.