Tome v. US case brief

Tome v. US (US 1995)

513 U.S. 150 (1995)

FACTS

T charged with sexually abusing 4-yr-old daughter while she’s with him during joint custody arrangement; daughter testifies, makes some statements tending to implicate T; prosecutor wants to bring in good prior consistent statements (which are more coherent, since witness stand is a difficult place for a child to be)

ISSUE

Δ implies that child’s trial testimony was a fabrication so that she could live w/ mother, to change joint custody arrangement – improper motive charge, prosecutor arg that this is his opening for prior consistent statements.

HOLDING

no, since there was no showing that the improper motive wasn’t also present when the prior statements were uttered.

Breyer dissent: Rule isn’t defining exclusive ground for admitting prior consistent statements; at CL, other grounds were available.
by identifying one subset of prior consistent statements as admissible for their truth, drafters didn’t mean to exclude other uses of PCS’s to rehabilitate witnesses when testimony is challenged for other reasons
even though a pre-motive PCS would be stronger, there are circs where a post-motive PCS is still relevant – the context it provides may give us greater confidence in its accuracy than w/o the statement.

SG: dissent must be right here; and other fed cts agree with this position.

Link to case:  Tome v. US