## Facts

- A federal grand jury charged Michael Quinto with two counts of tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201) and two counts of willfully subscribing false tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)), based on alleged unreported income for 1974 and 1975.
- The prosecution’s case relied heavily on an interview at the U.S. Attorney’s Office attended by two federal prosecutors and two IRS agents; Quinto appeared without counsel and received Miranda warnings.
- An IRS agent testified that Quinto made an incriminating statement during the interview indicating he was trying to cheat the government.
- Defense cross-examination attacked the agent’s account as coercive and distorted, and Quinto testified the interview was a trap and his statements were twisted.
- On redirect, the government referenced a detailed IRS memorandum prepared shortly after the interview by the agents recounting the interview and Quinto’s statements.
- Over objection, the district court admitted the memorandum as substantive evidence as a “prior consistent statement” under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B).

## Issues

1. Whether the IRS memorandum was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to rebut an implied charge of fabrication or improper motive.
2. If the memorandum was inadmissible, whether its admission as substantive evidence was prejudicial enough to require reversal.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial on all counts.
- The court held the IRS memorandum was erroneously admitted under Rule 801(d)(1)(B).
- The error was highly prejudicial because the memorandum was a lengthy, detailed, official narrative that effectively placed the government’s version of the interview before the jury as independent proof.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement is admissible only when offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive and only if the statement was made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose.
- Prior consistent statements may not be used to bolster testimony by introducing an out-of-court narrative that merely repeats and reinforces the witness’s account.
- Admission of an official investigative memorandum that “condenses” the prosecution’s case risks unfair prejudice by giving the jury an additional authoritative version of disputed events not tested by cross-examination as a document.

## Conclusion

Because the IRS memorandum did not satisfy Rule 801(d)(1)(B)’s premotive requirement and operated as improper bolstering with substantial prejudicial effect in a credibility-driven trial, the Second Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial.


United States v. Quinto, 582 F.2d 224 (2d Cir. 1978)