exactly this type of testimony (and not just lineup and photo spread identifications). Statements of prior identifications are admitted as substantive evidence because of “the generally unsatisfactory and inconclusive nature of courtroom identifications as compared with those made at an earlier time under less suggestive conditions.” FED. R. EVID. 801, advisory committee notes. We noted in Brink, 39 F.3d at 426, that evidence is generally admitted under 801(d)(1)(C) “when a witness has identified the defendant in a lineup or photospread, but forgets, or changes, his testimony at trial.” We explained that this Rule then permits a third person to testify regarding the previous statements of the eyewitness. Id.; see also United States v. Blackman, 66 F.3d 1572, 1578 (11th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>); United States v. O’Malley, 796 F.2d 891, 899
holding court abused its discretion when it excluded psychologists testimony regarding host of identification issues among which was crossracial identification holding that testimony of fbi agent regarding bank tellers out of court identification was properly admitted under 801d1c holding that fbi agent was properly allowed to testify as expert on serial murders holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that fbi agents testimony regarding witnesss pri or identification was admissible where nothing in the record suggested that the declarant was unavailable for reexamination after the agents testimony