Tome v. United States Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a witness’s prior consistent statement, offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, is admissible as nonhearsay only if the statement was made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose. Post-motive statements are inadmissible under this rule.
Legal Significance: This case resolved a circuit split by incorporating the common-law “pre-motive” requirement into Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), clarifying the temporal limits on admitting prior consistent statements as substantive, nonhearsay evidence.
Tome v. United States Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The petitioner, Tome, was convicted of sexually abusing his young daughter, A.T. The alleged abuse occurred while A.T. was in Tome’s primary custody following a divorce. At trial, the defense implied that A.T. had fabricated the allegations out of a desire to live with her mother, thus establishing an improper motive. This motive allegedly arose during the custody dispute. To rebut this charge, the prosecution introduced testimony from six witnesses who recounted seven detailed out-of-court statements A.T. had made about the abuse. All of these statements were made after the alleged motive to live with her mother had arisen. The government offered the statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) as prior consistent statements to rebut the charge of fabrication. The trial court admitted the statements, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a strict pre-motive requirement in favor of a balancing test that weighs the statement’s relevance and the strength of the motive to lie.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) permit the admission of a prior consistent statement as nonhearsay if the statement was made after the declarant’s alleged motive to fabricate arose?
No. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit, holding that Rule 801(d)(1)(B) incorporates Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) permit the admission of a prior consistent statement as nonhearsay if the statement was made after the declarant’s alleged motive to fabricate arose?
Conclusion
Tome v. United States establishes a bright-line temporal test for the admissibility Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exe
Legal Rule
A prior consistent statement is admissible as nonhearsay under Federal Rule of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nis
Legal Analysis
The Court's majority opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, concluded that Federal Rule Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ip
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under FRE 801(d)(1)(B), a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a