Tome v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

Tome v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Tome v. United States | 513 U.S. 150 (1995) When someone publicly accuses another of a nefarious deed, people often ask whether the accuser told anyone else before the matter became public – which, if that occurred, would boost the accuser’s credibility. But how would this same concept play out in a federal trial? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Tome versus United States. Matthew Tome and Beverly Padilla, both Native Americans, divorced and engaged in a bitter custody battle over their four-year old daughter, known in court proceedings only as A.T. A tribal court awarded primary custody to Tome. Padilla, who continued to fight for primary custody, reported to police officers that Tome had sexually abused A.T. The allegation was based on statements that A.T. had made to Padilla and a babysitter. A.T. later made similar statements to a social worker and three pediatricians. A federal grand jury indicted Tome for sexual abuse of A.T. on a Native American reservation. Tome pleaded not guilty and had a jury trial. At trial, the prosecution called A.T., then age six, to testify. The defense cross-examined A.T., suggesting that she was lying about the alleged sexual abuse because she wanted to live with her mother instead of her father. The undisputed evidence showed that A.T. had complained that she wished to live with her mother before accusing Tome of sexually abusing her. In response to that line of cross-examination, the prosecution called as witnesses the six people to whom A.T. had alleged sexual abuse by Tome before the trial began. The prosecution contended that their testimony were admissible as substantive evidence under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). That rule treats a declarant’s prior consistent out-of-court statement as non-hearsay if it’s used, quote, “to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive,” unquote. The defense objected on the ground that A.T.’s accusations of sexual abuse to the six people were made only after she had a motive to lie and, thus, Rule 801(d)(1)(B) did not permit their testimony as non-hearsay. The district court overruled the objection and permitted the witnesses to testify about her pretrial statements. The jury convicted Tome, who was sentenced to federal prison. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed Tome’s conviction. Tome successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear his case. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/tome-v-... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/tome-v-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries