A prior consistent statement is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the prior consistent statement only if the prior consistent statement is admissible to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or motive to fabricate.

United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433, 444-445 (5th Cir. 2008) (conviction for federal extortion offense; accused argued that district court erred in denying him an opportunity to ask specific "did you know" and "have you heard" questions during cross-examination of the Government's rebuttal character...During the cross-examination of a witness -- and during any examination of a witness who is a permissible target for impeachment -- the witness may be asked about specific acts that are indicative of the witness's untruthfulness if such acts are relevant to and probative of the witness' truthfulness or untruthfulness, unless the trial court determines that the acts inquired into are unduly prejudicial.

United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 886 (2d Cir. 1989).A person's propensity, or character, is not barred by the character rule if it is offered for any purpose other than to show a person's conduct on a particular occasion.

Buckley v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 306, 319 (4th Cir. 2008) (vacating judgment and remanding for further proceedings in a retaliation claim in which the trial court excluded Segar litigation evidence, on ground that plaintiff "intended to utilize the Segar litigation evidence to demonstrate retaliatory animus,...A person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule either if they are not offered to show that person's propensity or if they are not offered to show that that person engaged in conduct on a particular occasion because of his or her propensity to engage in that sort of conduct.