United States v. Kenneth Park

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Kenneth Sung Park (Park) challenges his convictions for bank fraud and wire fraud.

1. The district court acted within its discretion when it admitted Mr. Kim’s pri- or consistent statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B). Park’s challenge to the witness’s testimony at trial constituted an “express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive of the [witness’s] testimony ...” United States v. Chang Da Liu, 538 F.3d 1078, 1086 (9th Cir.2008) (citations omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the statement’s probative value outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. See United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1471 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that prior consistent statements had “significant probative force bearing on credibility apart from mere repetition” because the statements “demonstrated that [the witness] had repeated certain aspects of her story ... ”); see also United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1274 (9th Cir. 1989) (observing that the determination that “the prior consistent statement has significant probative force bearing on credibility…