This report was prepared for the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the current version of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), prior consistent statements are admissible for their substance as well as for their rehabilitation only if they rebut recent fabrication because they occurred before the fabrication motive. If a prior consistent statement is admissible for credibility but not admissible for substance, the opposing party is entitled to a jury instruction. Because of perceived difficulties with such an instruction, an amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) was proposed to the Evidence Rules Committee. This paper reports the results of an FJC survey of district judges on matters related to the proposed amendment.

At the request of the Court Administration and Case Management Committee, the Criminal Law Committee, and the Committee on Defender Service, the FJC surveyed federal district judges, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, federal defenders, Criminal Justice Act (CJA) district panel representative’s offices, and chief probation and pretrial services offices about harm or threat of harm to government cooperators. Respondents reported a minimum of 571 instances of harm to defendants/offenders and witnesses in the past three years. Cases often involved harm to both defendants/offenders and witnesses. Respondents most often reported threats of physical harm to defendants/offenders or witnesses and to friends or family of defendants/offenders or witnesses. Defendants were most likely to be harmed or threatened when in some type of custody, while witnesses were either in pretrial detention or not in custody at the time of harm or threat. Respondents frequently reported court documents or court proceedings as the source for identifying cooperators. Concerns about harm or threat affected the willingness of both defendants/offenders and witnesses to cooperate with the government in the past three years. Overall, respondents generally agreed that harm to cooperators was a significant problem and that more needed to be done to protect cooperators from harm.

The reports below detail the results of two surveys, conducted in 2010–2011, of bankruptcy attorneys and bankruptcy clerks of court about court practices regarding applications for payment of administrative expenses. Appendix A provides examples of existing court procedures for requests of such payments.

In November 1987, the Federal Judicial Center commenced its third major "time study" in the U.S. district courts. Like studies conducted in 1969 and 1979, the purpose of the new study is to develop case "weights" for district court civil and criminal cases.Case weights reflect the difference in average judge time demanded by different types of cases (antitrust cases, for example, have a much higher weight than automobile personal injury cases). Totaling the weights assigned to all cases filed in a district in a particular year yields a measure of the total judicial workload in that district, the district's "weighted filings." Compared to a simple count of the number of cases filed, the weighted filing index is a superior statistical indicator of the burden imposed by a district's caseload.