In the case of Matthew Wayne Tome v. United States, 1994, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding prior consistent statements and their admissibility as substantive evidence. The defendant, Matthew Wayne Tome, had been convicted for sexually abusing his daughter based on her testimony and corroborating testimonies from others who repeated what she had told them earlier about the abuse. On appeal, he argued that these additional testimonies were inadmissible hearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). The Supreme Court agreed with him by a majority decision (5-4), ruling that prior consistent statements are only admissible if they were made before any motive to fabricate arose. In this case, it was determined that when those witnesses heard the child's accusations against her father could have been after she developed a potential motive to lie due to custody battles between her parents; thus making their testimonies inadmissible as per rule 801(d)(1)(B). This led to Mr.Tome’s conviction being overturned.

In the dissenting opinion for Matthew Wayne Tome v. United States, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. He argued that this rule should not be limited to rebutting charges of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive but should also include statements consistent with a witness’s testimony used to rehabilitate credibility after any form of impeachment. According to him, limiting its application would contradict common law principles and legislative intent behind adopting these rules. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on advisory committee notes instead of statutory text in interpreting this rule and warned against judicial legislation through such practices.