Which type of evidence can be used to rehabilitate a witness after impeachment?

The use of prior consistent statements to rebut claims of recent motive is a recognized method for rehabilitating a witness after they have been impeached. When a witness has been challenged regarding their credibility, particularly by suggesting they have fabricated their testimony due to a recent motive, introducing prior consistent statements can help restore their reliability.

These statements must have been made before the motive arose to be effective. They serve to reinforce the witness's credibility by demonstrating that their testimony has been consistent over time. In other words, these statements not only support the reliability of the witness but also counter the argument that the witness's testimony is influenced or tainted by motives that developed after the fact.

The other types of evidence mentioned do not fulfill the same function in rehabilitating a witness post-impeachment. New witness testimonies can provide additional information but do not address the specific attack on the credibility of the original witness. Evidence of physical capability might be relevant in different contexts but does not pertain to the issue of a witness's credibility following impeachment. Prior inconsistent statements unrelated to motive lack the requisite connection to effectively counter the recent motive claim, which is why they do not serve the purpose of rehabilitation in this scenario.