testimony, Mrs. Pursell told counsel on the night of Tuesday, July 28, 1981 that her son had lost his glasses on July 22, 1981. (Tr. 1/25/82, at 66). But this statement was made after Pursell had been arrested for Brine’s killing, (Tr. 1/21/82, at 95), and after the newspapers had reported that Pursell’s glasses were found at the murder scene, id. at 87; dkt. no. 10, Ex. 10 (Erie Daily Times, 7/28/81). In fact, by July 28, 1981, Mrs. Pursell knew the full implication of her statements to counsel, and knew that her story would either support or undermine her son’s prospects at trial. Under these circumstances, her prior consistent statement was simply not admissible, and counsel’s failure to raise it was not unreasonable. Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 521 Pa. 482, 556 A.2d 370, 372 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Even if the statement was admissible,
holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible in part because defense counsel implied during opening statement that witness had fabricated her testimony holding incrimina ting statement admissible even though it was made moments after the officers had responded to the defendants question about what would happen if the defendant failed to make a statement and after the defendants request for counsel