A hypothetical from the last section is relevant here, too.

A number of investors have brought a class action against Dana Defaul, alleging that she defrauded them by making intentional misrepresentations in regard to interests in a real estate development.

Wanda Wyslowska testified that Defaul "promised that our money would at least double within two years." After Wyslawska testified, the plaintiffs then sought to have her read a concededly authentic portion of her deposition to that effect.

Which of these items (if any) are:

(i) requirements of 801(d)(1)(B) that Wyslowka's prior statement meets,

(ii) requirements of 801(d)(1)(B) that Wyslowska's prior statement does not meet, or

(iii) not requirements of 801(d)(1)(B) at all?

Is the declarant is subject to cross-examination? Was the prior statement under oath? Did the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing? Is the statement consistent with the declarant's testimony?

Statement is offered to rebut an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive.