What allows prior consistent statements to be admissible in a court of law?

Prior consistent statements are admissible in court primarily to counter claims of recent fabrication or improper influence. This principle allows a party to reinforce the credibility of a witness by presenting statements that the witness made before any alleged bias or motive to fabricate arose.

In other words, if a witness has been accused of fabricating their testimony, introducing a prior consistent statement helps demonstrate that their testimony has remained consistent over time and was not manufactured to align with subsequent events. This reinforces the reliability and truthfulness of the witness's current statements.

The other options do not provide a legal basis for the admission of prior consistent statements. Documentation by a third party, statements made to law enforcement, or the expertise of the witness do not inherently allow such statements to be used in court to support the witness's credibility in the context of countering accusations of fabrication.