The Prosecution's Patsy

Charge: possession with intent to distribute heroin. At trial, W, who has pled guilty to a lesser charge in return for her cooperation, testifies against D. Her testimony includes references to D's nephew's participation in the narcotics distribution scheme. On cross-examination D is permitted to impeach W by introducing evidence that W's grand jury testimony and her testimony at the trial of two other members of the ring did not include any reference to D's nephew. On redirect the government seeks to read portions ofW's prior grand jury testimony and the testimony from the two other trials that are consistent with the present testimony implicating D but that do not contain any references to D's nephew. D objects. What ruling and why? Has D expressly or impliedly charged W with recent fabrication or improper influence or motive? If so, has the prosecution rebutted that charge?