What kind of evidence can a party not use against their own witness?

A party cannot use prior consistent statements against their own witness when there has been no impeachment. This principle stems from the rules surrounding the use of witness testimony and ensures that a party can support their witness without undermining their credibility or character.

Prior consistent statements refer to statements made by a witness that are consistent with their current testimony and are meant to counter suggestions that the witness is lying or has a biased motive. If the witness has not been impeached—meaning their credibility has not been attacked in a way that would allow these prior statements to be introduced—then the party that called the witness cannot use those prior statements to contradict or limit their own witness's testimony.

This rule supports the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a party from undermining their own case through reliance on evidence that is not meant to be used against their own witness in a straightforward manner. In scenarios where a witness’s credibility is questioned, only specific rebuttals are permissible; thus, without an impeachment, prior consistent statements are generally off-limits for use against the witness by the party who called them to testify.