T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 38.071. 1 Crawf ord v. W ashington, 54 1 U .S. 36 (2 00 4) ; see also Dav is v. W ashington , 5 47 U. S. 2 813 (2006). 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . P D - 0447- 06 R O D O LF O R A N G EL , A ppe l l ant

v . THE S TA TE OF TE X AS ON DI S CRETI ON ARY REVI EW FROM THE S ECON D CO URT O F AP PEALS

W I CH I TA CO UNTY C OC HRAN , J
. , fi l ed an opi ni on di s s ent i ng t o t he di s m i s s al of t he pet i t i ons for di s cr et i onar yr evi ew , i n w hi ch J OH NS ON , J
. , j oi ned. O P I N I O N I r es pect ful l y di s s ent t o t he C our t ’ s act i on i n di s m i s s i ng t he State P rose cut i ng A t t or ney ’ s ( SPA ) and A ppel l ant ’ s peti ti o n s for di s cr et i onar yr evi ew . A ppel l antr ai s es i m por t antques t i o n s u n d e rth e Si x th Am e n d me n tc o ncer ni ng t he cons t i t ut i onal i t yof t he chi l dv id e o tap e sta tu te in th e p o st- C raw f ord w or l d. O t hercour t s have c i t ed R angel , b o th 1 2Rang el DissentingOpinion Page2

Se eMo ra le

s v . S tate , 222 S.W .3d 134, 145 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2006, no pet.) 3 (holdingthat wher e the tria l court admitted the orig inal “testimonial statement” videota pe and two follow-up videotape s–in which the orig inal interviewe r aske d unavailable child complainant interrog atory

questions that had bee n submitt ed by defe nse counse l–under a rticle 38.071, the follow-up out-of- court videota pes we re a

suitable substitut e for

actua l cross-e x amination; concur renc e cited Rangel

a s a uth ority ); W e lls v . S tate , No. 11-05-00335- CR, ___ S .W.3d ___, 2 0 0 7 T ex . Ap p . L E XIS 8 4 1 3 , * 9 (T ex . Ap p . –E as t l an d Oc t
. 2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , n . p . h
. ) ( n o t i n g Rangel as amon gc on fl ic tin ga

uth oriti e s) ; Lollis v . S

tate , 232 S.W .3d 803, 809 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2007, n o p et
. ) ( ci t i n g Rangel

fo r t he pr op os iti on

that out- of

-c ourt state me nts by

youngc hil dr e n to investigators may

be “te stimoni al” unde r Cra wfo rd ); Ma rti ne

z v . S tate , 236 S.W .3d 361, 371 (T ex . Ap p . –Fo rtW o rth2 0 0 7 , p et
. d i s m ’d ) ( ci t i n g Rangel for the proposition that the child’s hear say statements wer e “te stimoni al” be cause“they wer e made two months after the e me rg e nc y” ); Fi c arro v . S tate , N o . 1 3
- 0 3
- 0 0 4 3 9
- CR , 2 0 0 7 T e x. Ap p . L E X I S 3 1 6 6 ( T e x. Ap p . – C o rp u s C hri s t i Ap r. 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , p et
. d i s m ’d ) ( n o t d es i gn at edfo r p u

b l i cat i o n ) ( ci t i n g Rangel for the proposition that, under Art. 38.071, “the right to confrontation is not violated if the defe ndant is g iven the opportunity to submitwritten interr og atories to an una vailable witness.” ); He rn an de z v . S tate , 9 4 6 S o . 2 d

1 2 7 0 , 1 2 8 4 -8 5 (F l a. Ap p . 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Rangel and other authorities for the proposition that a child’s out-of- court stateme nts to investigators g athering evidenc e for

possible prosecution ar e “te stimoni al” unde r Cra wfo rd ); State v. Be ntley , 739 N. W
. 2 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (Iow a 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Rangel and holdingthat child’s out-of- court videota ped statements to police we re te stimoni al and thus inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause); State v. He nderson , 1 6 0 P
. 3 d 7 7 6 , 7 8 5 , 7 9 2 (K an s as 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Rangel and holdingthat videotaped inter

view of c hild made by

social worke r wa s “testimonial” and violated Con frontatio n Cl a

us e be c a us e c hil d d id n ot t e sti fy

at tria l) ; State v. Siler , 876 N.E.2d 534, 543 (O h i o 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Rangel and holdingthat admission of child’s hea rsay statements violated Da v is ). f a v o ra b lya n d u n f

a v o ra b ly , o n th is c r it ic a l an d re c u rrin g iss u e . T ria l an d a p p e llate c o u rts 3

ac ross the co u n tryare att em p ti n g to f ind a su it ab le ac co m m o d ati o n b etw ee n the d ef en d an t’ s
cons t i t uti onal r i ght of conf r ont at i on and a y oung chi l d’ s i nabi l i t yt o t es t i fyful l yand

ac cu ratelyin th e c o u rt roo m sett ing
. W e sh o u ld n o t shirk o u r du tyin reso lving ap p ell an t’ s
c o n s titu tio n a l q u e s tio n a n d in p ro v id in g g u id a n c e to th e T e x a s b e n c h a n d b a r. A ppel l antw as convi ct ed of va r i ous count s of agg rav ated se xual as s aul t , i ndece ncy
w i t h a chi l d, and at t empt ed i ndece ncy w i t h a chi l d, i nvol vi ng hi s ow n or hi s w i fe’ s chi l dr en.Rang el DissentingOpinion Page3

Rangel v. State, 199 S.W .3d 523, 537 (Tex. App.–For t Worth 2006) (“Having 4 deter mined that C.R.’s statements weretestimonial, C.R . was unavailable, a nd appellant ha d an opportunity

to cross-e x amine C.R. through written interr og atories, wehold that appellant wa s not denied his Six th Amendment right to confrontation.”)
. Ap pe lla nt’ s gro un d f

or re vie w a sk s: 5 Whe the r a

pp e lla nt’ s SixthAm e ndme nt rights we revio late d whe n th e un ava ila ble complainant’s testimonial hea rsay statements wer e admitted into evidenc e p ur s u antt o s t atut o r

y a uth o r i ty [ ?] Th e S.P. A. ’s gro un d f

or re vie w a sk s: Did the cour

t of appe als apply

the cor rec t analy sis to determine that the stateme nt of a f our-year -old child was testimonial under Crawf ord v. W ashington ? A ppel l ant ’ s daught er , C
. R
. , w as s i x y ear s ol d att he t i m e of t r i al a n d w as o n e of t he t hr ee chi l dr en he w as found t o have mol es t ed. B efor e t r i al , t he St at e mo v ed t o admi t an out - ofcour t for ens i c vi deot ape of her s t at ement s t aken under A r t i cl e 38. 071 i n l i eu of he r l i ve, i ncour t t es t i m on y . T he appe l l antobj ect ed t hatus i ng t he vi deot ape i ns t ead of l i ve t es t i m ony vi ol at ed bot h hi s r i ght t o confr ont at i on and cr os s - exami nat i on. T he t r i al cour t admi t t ed t he

v id e o tap e , an d C .R . d id n o t tes tify . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls c o n c lu d e d th a t th e f o re n sic

v ideo tape w as “ test im o n ial ” u n d er C raw f ord , b u t tha t app ell an t’ s co n fro n tat ion ri g h ts w ere not vi ol at ed bec aus e he c oul d have s ubm i t t ed w r i t t en ques t i ons for C
. R
. t o ans w erdur i ng anot herout - of- cour t vi deot ape s es s i on. 4 W e gr ant ed bot h appel l ant ’ s and t he SPA ’ s p e t i t i o n s f o rd i s cr et i onar yr evi ew t o deci de

w h e th e r th e p ro v is io n s o f A rt ic le 3 8 .0 7 1 a llo w in g th e a d m is s io n o f a n o u t- o f

-c o u rt , ex p a rte vi deot aped s t at ement bya chi l d vi ct i m i n l i eu of t hatchi l d’ s cour t r oom t es t i m onyvi ol at e a defe ndant ’ s r i ght of conf r ont at i on. 5 I w o u ld h o ld th a t th e c h ild -v id e o tap e sta tu te, A rticle 3 8 .0 7 1 , ca n n o t b e c o n stru e d toRang el DissentingOpinion Page4

al l ow t he admi s s i on of out - of- cour t t es t i m oni al hear s ays t at ement s unl es s t he chi l d t es t i fi es att r i al or t he defenda nt has had a pr i or oppor t uni t yt o cr os s - exami ne t hatchi l d. T o t he ext ent t hatt he s t at ut e ca nnot acc om m odat e t he demands of t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e as expl ai ned i n C raw f ordand D a v is , it v io la te s a p p e lla n t’ s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts
. I
. D ebbi e A dams, a C hi l d Pr ot ect i ve S er vi ces ( C PS) i nves t i gat or , began i nves t i gat i ng
a pp e l l a nta nd hi s w i fe , Ros a , fo r po s s i bl e c hi l d ab us e i n J a nu a r y of 20 03
. A w e e k l a t e r , CPS

r e mo v e d t h e f

o u r c h i l d r e n f

r o m a p p e l l a n t ’ s h o me a f t e r o n e o f t h e m, G. T. , t o l d M s . Ad a ms t hatappel l anthas s exual l yabus ed her
. T he chi l dr en w er e pl ace d i n fos t er car e and r ece i ved ext ens i ve couns el i ng. L ocal l aw - enfor cem en t offi ci al s w er e al s o not i fi ed, and D et ect i ve J u lie E llio t b e g a n a c ri m in a l in v e s tig a tio n in to th e a lle g e d s e x u a l a b u s e . C
. R
. w as appel l ant ’ s bi ol ogi cal daught er ; s he w as four y ear s ol d att he t i m e s he w as p lac e d in f

o ste r c a re . C h e ry l P o lly , a lice n se d p ro f e ss io n a l c o u n se lo r, w a s C .R .’s th e ra p ist. S h e tes tifie d th a t C .R . ex h ib ited b e h a v io rs a n d sy m p to m s c o n sis ten t w ith b e in g th e v ictim of s exual abus e: She exper i ence d ni ght m ar es , bed- w et t i ng, s exual act i ng out , and def i ance . Ac c o r d i n g t o M s . P o l l y , C. R. s a i d t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a d i n s e r t e d h i s f i n g e r i n t o h e r g e n i t a l s . By t he t i m e of t r i al , C
. R
. ’ s s y m pt om s had large ly subsi ded, but s he t ended t o “di s s oci at e” or

“ z o n e o u t” w h e n s h e w a s a s k e d a b o u t a p p e lla n t’ s a b u s e . T w o m o n th s a f

ter th e c h ild re n h a d b e e n re m o v e d f ro m th e ir p a re n ts’ h o m e , C a m ill e C l evel and, a C P S inves t i gat or , conduct ed a vi deot aped “ for ens i c i nt er vi ew ” of C. R
. atRang el DissentingOpinion Page5

As thepr op on e nt o f t

he vid e ota

pe , th e State ha d th e burd e n to de mon str ate its 6 admissibili ty . T EX . R. E V ID . 104(a)
. Se eAl v arad o v . S tate , 9 12 S.W. 2d

19 9, 21 5 ( Te x. Crim. App. 1995). To the e x tent that the State fa iled to show the circ umstances surrounding the videotapingto establish that it was a non-testimonial interview, it has f ailed in its burden of proof. “Pat s y ’ s H ous e, ” t he W i chi t a C hi l dr en’ s A dvocac yC ent er . M s. C leve l and expl ai ned t hat “i t ’ s a s afe envi r onm ent
. A l l eged pe r pet r at or s or s om eone t hathas been acc us ed of a bus i ng a chi l d.
. . ar e not al l ow ed.
. . . T her e’ s al s o a few C hi l d Pr ot ect i ve S er vi ce w or ker s hous ed t here as w el l as som e l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers so w e c a n w o rk th e cases j oint l y . ” M s. C lev e lan d c o n d u c ted th e v id e o tap e d in ter v iew o n M a rc h 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 . D e tec tiv e Ju lie E lli o tt
wa t c h e d t h e i n t e r v i e w. Be f o r e t r i a l , t h e S t a t e mo v e d t o a d mi t t h e M a r c h 2 6 v i d e o t a p e i n s t e a d o f c a l l i n g C. R. th

a s a w itn e ss . A p p e llan t o b jec ted . T h e re f

o re , th e trial ju d g e c o n d u c ted a p re trial h e a rin g to det er m i ne w het herC
. R
. w as an “unava i l abl e” chi l d w i t nes s and i f t he vi deot aped i nt er vi ew
cou l d b e used in l i eu o f her i n-court t est i m on yun der A rt i cl e 38
. 07 1. A t t hat heari ng , M s. 6 P o l l y e x p l a i n e d t h a t “ t e s t i f y i n g l i v e i n t h e c o u r t r o o m w o u l d b e e x t r e me l y t r a u ma t i c ” f o r C. R. I n her opi ni on, t es t i m ony vi a cl os ed ci r cui t T V w oul d be l es s t r aumat i c, but s he s t i l l di d not th in k th a t C .R . “w o u ld b e a b le to d o it b e c a u se th e re w o u ld still b e stra n g e rs in v o lv e d in t hat
. ” The t r i al j udge expr es s ed hi s conce r n atat t empt i ng “t o bal ance bot h s i des of t he pot ent i al r i ght–har m t o t he chi ld as w ell as t he def endant ’ s r i ght t o confr ont at i on. ” A pp el l ant’ s coun sel obj ect ed to t he p roposal as vi olat i ng bo t h hi s conf ront at i on and cross exam i nati on ri gh t s:Rang el DissentingOpinion Page6

W ell , Ju d g e, no t on lyare w e d ea li n g w it h a c o n fro n tat ion issue h ere , w e’re d e a lin g w ith a c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n iss u e h e re . If th e
– if th e S tate is allo w e d to i nt r oduce t he vi deot ape of [C
. R
. ] and i n connec t i on w i t h t hatt her e’ s a fi ndi ng t hats he’ s unavai l abl e, t hates s ent i al l y– t hat es s ent i al l y put s m e i n t hi s pos i t i on. C ami l l e C l evel and, a w or ker for C PS, w ho i s cl ear l yal i gned w i t h t he St at e– y o u k n o w , the ym a y
– th e ym a ytak e a p o sitio n d if f e re n tly , b u t C P S is c lea rly a lig n e d w ith th e S tate in th e p ro s e c u ti o n o f th is c a se . W a s a llo w e d to i nt er vi ew i n an envi r onm ents ubj ectonl yt o t he cont rol o f C PS, t hi s one w i t nes s , pr es ent ques t i ons t o t hi s w i t nes s , r ece i ve t he r es pons es fr om t hat w i t ness, and t hat i s going t o b e t he sum t otal t est i m on yfrom t his w i t ness. C ouns el el abor at ed fur t her : T he pr ocedur e w as unfai r beca us e C PS “ha d t hei r chanc e, but I don’ t get m i ne. T hat ’ s not fai r t o m ycl i ent
. A nd s o w hatt he St at e i s pr offe r i ng i s s ay i ng, J u d g e , l e t u s ma k e o u r o p p o r t u n i t yt o g e t t h i s f i v e - y e a r - o l d t o t e l l t h e c o u r t a n d j u r ywh a t we
w a n t to , b u t w e w o n ’t g iv e th e o p p o rtu n ity to th e d e f e n d a n t to in a n ym e a n in g f u l w a yto

r ebutt hat
. ” T he t r i al j udge expr es s ed hi s conce r n t hatappel l ant ’ s at t or ney w oul d “gr i l l ” C
. R
. and to ld h im , [Y ] ou have a ver ydeep voi ce. Y ou come acr os s ver ys t r ongl y . I m ean I t hi nk ta k in g a ll o f

th a t in to c o n sid e ra tio n a n d th e f a c t th a t– w h a t I w o u ld p rim a rily s e e I t h i n k i s t h e f

a c t t h a t t h e d o c t o r i s g o i n g t o t e s t i f yt h a t t h e r e we r e s ome ve r y o b j e c t i v e s i g n s o f a b u s e i s wha t ’ s b e e n r e p r e s e n t e d t o m e and t hat

– I ’ m–I ’ m j u s t n o t wi l l i n g t o p u t a f o u r - o r f i v e - y e a r - o l d k i d t h r o u g h t hat r i ght now bas ed upon w hatI know
. So I ’ m goi ng t o gr antt he St at e’ s m ot i on. T he t r i al j udge di d s t at e t hathe m i ght r econs i der hi s r ul i ng dur i ng t r i al , once he had s een t he videot ape, “i f i t l oo ks l i ke she h as been real l ygu i ded by her nose d ow n a p at h that she as a fou r- or f

iv e -y ear- old chi l d w ou l d n ot go. ” T hu s, du ri ng t ri al , app el l ant’ s at t orney al so obj ect ed t o the admi s s i on of t he vi deot ape a s not havi ng been c onduct ed by“a ne ut r alRang el DissentingOpinion Page7

See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . Art. 38.071, § 2(a) (“ The re cordingof an or al statement of 7 thec hil d ma de be fo retheind ic tme nt i s r e tur ne d o r t he c omp la int

ha s b e e n f

ile d is a dmi ssible into evidence if the cour

t makes a de termination that the fa ctual issues of identity or ac tual occur renc e we re f

ully and fairly

inquired into in a detac hed manne r by a neutr al individual experience d in child abuse c ases that se eks to find the truth of the matter.”)
. Appellant wa s also sentenc ed to fifty year s’ imprisonment on a sepa rate ag gravated 8 sexual assault count, as well as twe nty year s’ and ten year s’ imprisonment on other counts, none of wh ic h a reat is su e in t

he a pp e a l be fo reus . Rangel , 199 S.W .3d at 532. 9 Id. 10 Id. at 534-35 (stating that the vide otaped inter view wa s a “struc tured, for malized 11 questioning of

C.R. by the [CP S] investigator” a nd is was “moreakin to the ty pes of e xpa rte examination dis cussed a

nd condemne d in Cra wfo rd than a ‘ casua l remar

k to an ac quaintance ’ or even to initial statements made to a police off

icer respondingto a ca ll,” and notingthat C.R. was describing pa st events, not fac ing a n emerg ency

). i ndi vi dual i n a det ache d m anner . ” T hatobj ect i on w as al s o over r ul ed. T he j ur yconvi ct ed 7 app el l ant of m ost , bu t no t al l , of t he charges, and t he tr i al cou rtsent enced him t o fift yy ears ’ i mp r i s o n me n t o n t h e a g g r a v a t e d s e x u a l a s s a u l t c o u n t i n v o l v i n g C. R. 8 O n a p p e a l, a p p e lla n t c la im e d , in ter a lia , t hatA r t i cl e 38. 071 “i s uncons t i t ut i o nal as appl i ed t o hi m beca us e i t deni es hi m hi s Si xt h A m endment r i ght t o confr ont at i on. ” A s t he 9

cour t of appea l s s ai d, “A ppel l ant cl ai m s t hat C
. R
. ’ s vi deot aped i nt er vi ew is t est i m oni al hear s ay , and t hatr egar dl es s of w h et hers he w as unavai l abl e, he di d not have a pr i or
o p p o rtu n ityto c ro ss -e x a m in e h e r, so th e in ter v iew is in a d m iss ib le.” T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls 10 ag ree d that C
. R
. ’s vid eo tape d stat em en t w as “ test im o n ial ” u n d er C raw f ordand D a v is , and 11
t hatA r t i cl e 38. 071 “cl ear l ycont empl at es t hata chi l d’ s s t at ement admi t t ed under[ th atar t i cl e]Rang el DissentingOpinion Page8

Id. at 535. 12 Id. at 53 6- 37 ; seeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 38.071, § 2(b) . This section provides a s 13 fo llo ws : I f a r ecording is madeunder Subsec tion (a) of this section and af

ter a n indictment is returne d or a c omplaint has been f iled, by motion of the attorney

repr esenting the state or the attorney

repr esentingthe def

endant a nd on the appr oval of the court, both attorne y s may propound written inter

rog atories that sha ll be prese nted by the same ne utral individual who made the initial inqui ries, if possible, and re c or de d und e r t

he same or

sim ila r c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he orig ina l r e c or din gwi th th e t i m e an d

d at e o f th e i n qu i ry

cl earl y i n d i cat edi nth e r ec o rd i n g. w i l l fun ct i on as t es t i m ony i n a cr i m i nal cas e. ” H ow ever , t he cour t of appea l s t hen hel d t hat 12 A r t i cl e 38. 071 “pr ovi des an effec t i ve al t er nat i ve t o t he t r adi t i onal fac e- t o- fac e conf r ont at i on att r i al ” bec aus e i t per m i t s a def endantt o s ubm i t w r i t t en ques t i ons t o t he s ame pe r s on w ho had or i gi nal l yi nt er vi ew ed t he chi l d and t hos e ques t i ons coul d, w i t h t he appr oval of t he t r i al

c o u r t , b e p o s e d t o t h e c h i l d d u r i n g a s e c o n d v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w. 13 T hus , t he pr i m ar yques t i on befor e t hi s C our t i s w het her w r i t t en i nt er r ogat or i es ar e a
su itab le su b stitu te f

o r f a c e -to -f a c e c o n f ro n tatio n a n d c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n in a c rim in a l trial. T h e a n sw e r i s o b v io u s to m e : N o . T h e su b m iss io n o f w ritten in ter ro g a to rie s is n o su b stitu te fori n- cour t , sw o rn t es t i m ony , s ubj ectt o t he Si xt h A m endment ’ s r equi r ement s of

c o n f ro n ta tio n a n d c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n . II. B u t b e f o re th is C o u rt c o u ld a d d re ss a p p e llan t’s c o n te n ti o n th a t th e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls

er r ed byequat i ng A r t i cl e 38. 071’ s i nt er r ogat or y pr ocedur e w i t h t he t ype of c onfr ont at i on and

cross -exam i nati on t hat t he S i xth A m end m ent r equ i res , i t shou l d a dd res s t he S P A ’s cross -Rang el DissentingOpinion Page9

Se e, e .g., W

all v . S tate , 184 S.W .3d 730, 742-43 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006) (statingthat 14 “whe ther a

statement is testimonial under Cra wfo rd is determined by

the standard of an o b j ec t i v el y re as o n ab l e d ec l ar an ts t an d i n g i nth e s h o es o f th e a ctu al d ec l ar an t ”) (c i t i n g Cra wfo rd, 541 U.S. at 52, which set out one de finition of “testimonial” statements as those “ ‘statements that wer e made under c ircumstance s which would lea d an objec tive witness rea sonably to believe that the statement would be availablefor use at a late r trial,’”and United States v. Cromer , 389 F.3d 662, 675 (6th Cir. 2004) (statingthat the dec isive inquiry under a Confrontation Clause objec tion to h e ars ay

is “ wh e the r a

re a so na blepe rs on

in t he de c lara

nt’ s p os iti on

wo uld anti c ipate his statement beingused ag ainst the ac cused in investig atingand prose cutingthe crime”))
. pet i t i on w hi ch cl ai m s t hatt he cour t of appe al s er r ed i n hol di ng t hatC
. R
. ’ s vi deot aped stat em en t w as “ test im o n ial ” u n d er C raw f ord . If C .R .’s s ta te m e n ts w e re n o t “ te s tim o n ia l,” th e n th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t h a s n o a p p lica b ili tya n d th e v id e o tap e , tak e n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith A r t i cl e 38. 071, i s admi s s i bl e undert he s t at ut or y s cheme as an exce pt i on t o t he hea r s ayr ul e. A . C . R . ’s V ide o tap ed In ter v iew W a s a T estim o n ial Sta tem en t. Th e SP A a r g u e s t h a t C. R. ’ s v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w i s n o t a t e s t i mon i a l s t at ement be c a us e t he r e i s no e vi de nc e t ha t C. R. he r s e l f v i e w e d t he a ns w e r s a s “ t e s t i mony . ” The SPA p o sits th a t “a sta tem e n t m a d e b ya c h ild to a g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo ye e is te stim o n ial o n lyif

m a d e u n d e r c irc u m sta n c e s th a t w o u ld c a u se a re a so n a b le p e rso n o f th e sa m e lev e l o f m a tu rity

or i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng as t he chi l d t o bel i eve t he s t at ement w i l l be us ed aga i ns t t he defe ndanti n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. ” A fter C raw

f ord , but befor e D a v is , t hi s w as an ent i r el ydefe ns i bl e pos i t i on beca us e t he Supr eme C our t i m pl i ed i n C r aw f or d t hatone s houl d l ook at t he expect at i ons of t he dec l ar ant i n det er m i ni ng w het her he i nt ended t o m ake ( or knew t hathe w as m aki ng) a s t at ement t hat

m ig h t b e u se d a s e v id e n c e in a f u tu re c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g . A f e w o th e r sta te c o u rts, in 14Rang el DissentingOpinion Page10

Se e, e .g., Pe op lev . V

igi l , 1 27 P.3 d 9 16 , 9 24 (C olo . 2 00 6) (h olding , in c hil d a bu se 15 pr os e c uti on , th at c hil d’ s st ate me nts to h is d oc tor duri ngme dic a l e xam w e reno t te sti mon ia l; stating that, “[b] ased on our rea ding of Cra wfo rd

and our r e vie w o f o the r c ourt s d e c idi ngthi s issue, we hold that the ‘ objective witness’ languag e in Cra wfo rd re fe rs to a

n o bje c tiv e ly rea sonable pe rson in the dec lara nt’s position. Applying this test to the instant case , we de termine that an o bje c tiv e ly

re a so na blepe rs on

in t he de c lara

nt’ s p os iti on

wo uld no t ha ve be lie ve d th at hi s statements to the doctor w ould be ava ilable for useat a late r trial.”)
. 143 P.3d 1047 (Colo. C t. App. 2005). 16 Id. at 1051. 17 Id. at 1053. 18 Pe op lev . S

ha rp , No. 06SC18, 2006 Col o. L EXI S 826 (Colo. Oct. 10, 2006) (not 19 designated f

or publication). p o st- C r a w

fo r d , pr e- D a v is cas es , had t aken t hi s appr oach w i t h r es pectt o s t at ement s of y oung chil dren. For exam ple, t he S P A ci t es P eop l e v. Sh arp , a C ol or ado chi l d- abus e pr os ecut i on

1 5 16 i n w hi ch t he chi l d w as i nt er vi ew ed on vi deot ape bya for ens i c i nt er vi ew erout si de t he p rese n ce o f th e p o li ce . T h e C o lorad o co u rto f a p p ea ls st ated that the “ inq u ir yis w h ethe r, under t he ci r cumst ance s , t he decl ar ant i nt ended t o beart es t i m onyagai ns t t he ac cus ed. T he det er m i nat i ve fac t or i n t hi s i nqui r yi s t he dec l ar ant ’ s aw ar enes s or expec t at i on t hathi s or her

s t at ement m ayl at er b e u sed at t r i al
. ” U ndert hatt es t , t he chi l d’ s s t at ement s t o t he s oci al 17

w or kerw er e nott es t i m oni al
. H ow ever , t he C ol or ado Sup r e me Cou r tv a c a t ed and r emanded 18 Sh arp aft ert he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t changed the fo cus of t he i nqui r yi n D avis v. W as hi ngt on .

19 U n d er D a v is , the p rim a ry f o c u s in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n t is “t es t i m oni al ” i s upon t he obj ect i ve purpos e of t he i nt er vi ew o r in terroga t i on, not upon t heRang el DissentingOpinion Page11

Davis v. W

ashington , 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S.Ct . at 2273-74. The Supreme Court 20 explained: Statements are nontestimonial when made in the c ourse of police interrog ation under c ircumstance s objectively indicatingthat the primary purpose of

the interrog ation is to enable police assistance to meet an ong oing e merg ency . They aretestimonial when the circ umstances objec tively indicate that ther e is no such on g oin ge me rg e nc y , a

nd that th e prima

ry purp os e of

theint e rrog atio n is to establish or prove past eve nts potentially rele vant to later c riminal prosec ution. Id. See Tom L ininge r, Re c on c e ptu ali zing Co nfron tation afte r D av is , 85 T EX . L. REV . 271, 280 (2006) ( “The Da v is . . . rea soning r epre sents a conspic uous depar ture from the Cra wfo rd

ru l i n g. The Cra wfo rd

Court had foc used on the mindset of the de clar ant: Did she g ive her statement under c ircumstance s in which she could f orese e the late r prose cutorial use of her w ords? The Da v is op ini on

sh if te d th e fo c us from t

he de c lara

nt’ s st ate of

min d to theof

fi c e rs ’ p ur

po se in questioning the decla

rant.” ) (f ootnote omitted). As explained by one appe llate cour

t in the c onte xt of ho ldi ngthat a

fo re ns ic int e rv ie w o f a

sma ll c hil d b y

a so c ia l w or

ke r i nv e sti g atin gc hil d abuse w as “te stimoni al” unde r the ne w Da v is standard, the test is not how the person questioned views the interrog ation, but what the purpose of

the statement wa s as deter mined by an objec tive view of the circ umstances. It makes more se nse to ask whe ther a n objective pe rson, looking a t the circ umstances of

the questioning , would consider the purpose of the statements as a iding the inve stigation. W as it a statement take n to addre ss an immediate situation and see what is g oing on, like a mother' s questioning of

her child in this case and like the911 emerg ency call in Da v is , or wa s it a step taken in a police investig ation afte r the a ction is over for purposes of a iding the investigation and potential prosec ution, like Amy Hammon' s statements to police in Hammon , and like [child victim’s] statements to [social worker] duringthe interview? In the Inte rest of S.R. , 920 A.2d 1262, 1267 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). Pe op lev . S

ha rp , 155 P.3d 577, 581 (Colo. C t. App. 2006). 21 d ec laran t’ s ex p ec tat ion s. T h u s, o n rem an d , the C o lorad o co u rt o f ap p ea ls rev erse d S h arp ’s 20

c o n v ictio n a n d re m a n d e d f o r a n e w trial b e c a u se th e o b jec tiv e p u rp o se o f

th e f iv e -y e a r-o ld chi l d’ s vi deot aped st at ement t o a pr i vat e for ens i c i nt er vi ew erata chi l dr en’ s advoca cycent er
w as t o el i ci t stat em en t s fr om hert o be us ed t o pr os ecut e t he def endanti n a l at ercr i m i nal proceed i ng . T he co urtcon cl ud ed that “such st at em ents are i nh erent l yt est i m on i al becau se

21
t hey ‘ar e an obv i ou s subst i t ute for l i ve t est i m on y , becau se t hey do preci sel y w hat a w i t nessRang el DissentingOpinion Page12

Id. (qu o t i n g Da v is , 547 U.S. at ___, 126 S. Ct . at 2278). 22 867 A.2d 314 (Md. 2005). 23 Id. at 324. 24 Id. at 330. Se eals o United States v. Borde aux , 400 F.3d 548 ( 8th Cir. 2005) (re versa l 25 wh e restate me nt w a s ma de to “ fo re ns ic int e rv ie we r”and c hil d te sti fi e d b y

c los e d c ir c uit te le vis ion ); Pe op lev . S

isa v ath , 1 3 Ca l. R

ptr . 3 d 7 53 (C a l. C t. A

pp . 2 00 4) (c hil d v ic tim videotaped statement to fore nsic specia list i nadmissible).

See, e .g., State v. Hoope r , No. 33826, __ P.3d ___, 2007 I da. L EXI S 234 (I daho 26 Dec ember

24, 2007) (holdingthat videotaped statements the child victim made to nurse during interview at a sexual-trauma a buse-r esponse c enter

wer e testimonial beca

use the c ircumstance s surround ingtheint e rv ie w i nd ic ate d th at th e prima ry purp os e of

theint e rv ie w w a s to e sta bli sh d o es o n d ir ec t exa m ination
. ’” 22 E ven bef or e D a v is , m anycour t s had, l i k e the For t W or t h C our t of A ppeal s i n t he pr es ent cas e, fol l ow ed t he r eas oni ng of St at e v. Snow den, w hi ch had he l d t hata s t at ement 23 i s t es t i m oni al i f i t w as “made orel i ci t ed ” fo r th e p ri m ary p u rpo se o f b eing u sed in a f u ture
c r i mi n a l p r o c e e d i n g . I n S n o w den , a chi l d- abus e pr os ecut i on i nvol vi ng t he us e of a 24 vi deot aped s t at ement m ade t o a s oci al w or kerata j uveni l e ce nt er , t he appe l l at e cour t s t at ed, [I ] f a st at ement i s m ade under s uch ci r cumst ance s t hatw oul d l ead a n obj ect i ve per s on t o bel i eve t hats t at ement s m ade i n r es pons e t o g o v e rn me n ti n t er r ogat i on l at erw oul d be us ed att r i al , t he admi s s i on of t hos e s t at ement s m u st be condi t i oned upon C raw f ord ’ s r equi r ement s of unava i l abi l i t yand a pr i or oppor t uni t yt o cr os s - exami ne. 25 V irtu a ll y a ll c o u r ts th a t h a v e r e v ie w e d th e a d m is s ib il it y o f f o r e n s ic c h il d in te rv iew sta tem e n ts
or vi deot apes aft ert he D a v is d e c isio n h a v e f o u n d th e m to b e “ tes tim o n ial” a n d in a d m iss ib le unl es s t he chi l d t es t i fi es at t r i al or i s pr es ent l y unavai l abl e but t he defe ndant has had a pr i or oppor t uni t yforcr os s - exami nat i on. 26Rang el DissentingOpinion Page13

past eve nts potentially

rele vant to later c riminal prosec ution as opposed to meetingthe child’s me dic a l ne e ds ); State v. He nderson , 160 P.3d 776 (Kan. 2007) (reve rsible er ror to admit three

year -old child’s videotape d statement to social wor ker taken at g overnme nt fac ility to gather e vid e nc e a g a ins t a lle g e d p e rp e tr ator wh e n c hil d d id n ot t e sti fy at tria l) ; State v. Justus , 205 S.W .3d 872 (Mo. 2006) (while social worke r’s job wa s to protect child, “primary purpose” of vid e ota pe d s tate me nts wa s to e sta bli shpa st e ve nts ); State v. Blue , 717 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 2006) (v ide ota pe d s tate me nt t o f

or e ns ic int e rv ie we r a

t c hil d a dv oc a c y

c e nte r i na dmi ssible ); State v. Pi tt , 147 P.3d 940 (Ore. Ct. App. 2006) (reve rsible er ror to admit “testimonial” videota ped statements made by

two children to socia l worker at child abuse assessment ce nter whe n children did no t te sti fy

at tria l) ; In the Inte rest of S.R. , 920 A.2d 1262 (Sup. Penn. 2007) (r ever sible err or to admit videotape of c hild victim’s st atement to for ensic DH S interviewer for the pur

pose of investigation and possible prosecution whe n child did not testify at juvenile’s a djudication hearing)
. In Hende rson , the Kansa s Supreme Court explicitl y reje cted the sa

me argument as that 27 made by the SPA in the present ca se: The amicus America

n Prosecutors Rese arc h Institut e urg es us to adopt an a g ee qu iva le nt s tand ard

wh e n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a c hil d’ s st ate me nt i s te sti mon ia l. In support, it cites six studies evaluatingwhat childre n understand a bout court and c ourt -r e late d c on c e pts . L iketheCourt of Ap pe a ls, wee xpre ssl y

re je c t it s sp e c if

ic argument that the videotape d interview w as not testimonial solely beca use a 3- year -old child would have no rea sonable e x pectation her statements will later be used at trial. We obser

ve that its argument heavily relies upon the la

nguag e fr om Cra wfo rd, 541 U.S. at 51-52, that desc ribes testimonial statements as those “ made under c ircumstance s which would lea d an objec tive witness rea sonably to believe that th e state me nt w ou ld b e ava ila blefo r u se at a

late r t ri a l.”Ind e e d, thec a se upon which it principally relies, Sta tev . B ob ad

illa , 709 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2006), wa s decide d befor e Da v is. We also observe that under the Institut e’s argume nt, thepr os e c uti on is a llo we d to have its c ake and e at it too : T he vic timis too youngto b e c omp e te nt t o te sti fy , a s th e dis tric t c ourt fo un d w ith3- ye ar- old F .J.I ., but no t to o youngto h ave he r s tate me nt p la c e d in e vid e nc e by

theState wi th no attendant de fense right to confront and c ross-examine. 160 P.3d at 785. See ge nerally, My rna S. Raede r, Comments on Child Abuse Lit igation in a “Testi monial” W

orld: The Intersec tion of Competenc y, He arsay, and Confrontati on , 82 I ND . L
. J. 1009, 1023 (2007) ( discussing the use of f orensic inter

views in child-abusecase s; stating that
“ Cra wfo rd

appea rs to doom the use of multidisciplinary teams in child abuse a s a wa y of int ro du c ingstate me nts of

c hil dr e n who do no t te sti fy” and lame nti ngthat “ Cra wfo rd has turned these be st practice s into a tex tbook for cr eatingtestimonial statements when the c hild does not testify .”); Rober

t P. Most eller, Testi ng

theTestimo nia l Co nc e

pt a nd Ex c e pti on s to Confrontat ion: “A Lit tle Child Shal l Lead Them ,” 82 I ND . L .J. 9 17 , 9 57 (2 00 7) (c oll e c tin gpo stDa v is ca s es , u s i n g Snowden as the “ arc hety pe” situation, and stating , “Statements sec ured f rom T h u s, th e S P A ’s a rg u m e n t, th o u g h a c o g e n t o n e , d o e s n o t sta n d u p in a p o st- D a v is 27Rang el DissentingOpinion Page14

children f or the e x plicit purpose of a dmission i n court through a hea rsay exception have be en uniformly treated as testimonial.”). 199 S.W .3d at 536. 28 J ustice Scalia, in his stingingdissent to Ma ry lan d v . Craig , 497 U.S. 836 (1990), 29 upholding the useof a two- way closed-c ircuit television in taking the testimony of a tra umatized c hil d v ic tim , ma de pr e c ise ly thi s p oint: Th e Court ’s te st t od ay

re qu ir e s unava ila

bil ity on ly in t he se ns e that th e c hil d is unable to testify

in the prese nce of

the def endant. That cannot possibly be the re le va nt s e ns e . I f u

nc on fronte d te sti mony

is a dmi ssiblehe ars ay

wh e n th e wi tne ss is unable to confront the defe ndant, then pre sumably there areother c ateg ories of a dmi ssiblehe ars ay

c on sis tin gof

un sw or n te sti mony

wh e n th e wi tne ss i s una

bleto ri s k p er j ury , un -c ro s s -e x am i n edt es t i m o ny wh enth e w i tn es s i s un ab l e t o un d er go hostile questioning, etc
. Cal ifo rn ia v. Gree n , 399 U.S. 149, 26 L . Ed. 2d 489, 90 S. Ct . 1 93 0 ( 19 70 ), is n ot p re c e de nt f or su c h a sil ly sy ste m. Id. at 866 (Sca lia, J ., dissenting)
. w o rl d
. T h u s, I w o u ld ag ree that the c o u rt o f a p p ea ls co rre ctl yd eterm ined that C
. R
. ’s vi deot aped s t at ement s w er e “t es t i m oni al
. ” B . T h e S u b m iss io n o f W ritten In ter ro g a tor ies A re N o t a Sub s t i t ut e f or I n- C ourt C onf r ont at i on a nd C r os s - Ex ami nat i on. A fter h o lding that C
. R
. ’s vid eo tape d stat em en t w as testi m o n ial an d there fo re i nad m i ssi ble unl ess s he tes t i fi ed at t ri a l ( o r a p p e llant had had a pri or opp ort un i t yt o crossexami ne her ) , t he cour t of appea l s concl uded t hat t he s ubm i s s i on of w r i t t en i nt er r ogat or i es p ro v id e “ a n e f

f e c tiv e a ltern a tiv e to th e tra d iti o n a l face-t o-f a c e c o n f ro n tatio n a t trial.” If

th is 28 i s s o, vi r t ual l y ever y defe ndant coul d happi l y vi deot ape hi s uns w or n pr et r i al s t at ement and then ag ree to ans w er t h e S tat e’s w ri tt en interrog atories in a n o ther ex par t e vi deot ape i n l i eu of t es t i fy i ng i n cour t and s ubm i t t i ng hi m s el f t o cr os s - exami nat i on. Such a pr ocedur e does 29

n o t in s p ir e c o n f

id e n c e , a n d it is n o s u b s titu te f o r i n -c o u rt c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n .Rang el DissentingOpinion Page15

541 U.S. at 43. 30 Id. 31 Id. at 49. 32 Id. at 55-56. 33 Id. at5 7 (qu o t i n g Mattox v. U nited States , 156 U.S. 237, 244 (1895)). 34 Id. at 61. In Davis v. Alask a, 415 U.S. 308 (1974), the Supre me Court explained that 35 thea c c us e d’ s right t o b e c on fronte d w iththewi tne sse s a g a ins t hi m is mor e tha n b e inga llo we d to confront the witnesses phy sically . The primar y interest sec ured by

confr ontation is the right of I n C raw f ordi t s el f, t he S upr eme C our t expl ai ned t hatt he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e w as bas ed on t he Engl i s h comm on l aw t r adi t i on of “l i ve t es t i m onyi n cour t s ubj ect t o adver s ar i al t es t i ng. ” T he C our t not ed t hatt hi s t r adi t i on w as i n cont r as t t o t he Europe an ci vi l l aw t hat

30 “condone [d] exami nat i on i n pr i vat e by j udi ci al offi cer s . ” T he Supr eme C our t al s o not ed 31
t hatdepos i t i ons or ot her pr i or t es t i m ony coul d be adm i t t ed agai ns tan ac cus ed onl yi f he w as present and had an o pp ort un i t yt o cr oss- exam i ne t he w i t ness dur i ng t hatdepos i t i on or pr i or t es t i m ony . T he C our t expl ai ned t hata “pr i or oppor t uni t yt o cross- exami ne” w as bot h a

32 “nec es s ar y ” and “ di s pos i t i ve” r equi r ement t o t he admi s s i on o f t e s t i mon i a l s t at ement s . A nd, 33 i n r i ngi ng t er m s , t he Supr eme C our t decl ar ed t hat“underno ci r cumst ance s ” s hal l t he defe ndantbe depr i ved of “ s eei ng t he w i t nes s fac e t o fac e and .
. . s ubj ect i ng hi m t o t he or deal of a c ross -exam i nati on . ” F i nall y , t he C ou rtexp l ai ned t hat t he C on front at i on C l ause 34 pr ovi des a pr ocedur al guar ant ee: “I t comm ands , not t hatevi dence be r el i ab le, but t hat rel iab ili ty b e asses sed i n a p art i cularm ann er: by t est i ng i n the cr ucibl e of c ross e x a m in a tio n .” 35Rang el DissentingOpinion Page16

cross-e x amination. The Supreme Court stated, Cr os s- e xami natio n is theprinc ipa l me ans by wh ic h th e be lie va

bil ity of a wi tne ss and the truth of his testimony aretested. Subject alwa

y s to the broad discr etion of a tria l ju dg e to p re c lud e repe tit iveand un du ly ha ra ssi ngint e rrog atio n, thec ro sse xami ne r i s n ot o nly

pe rm itt e d to de lveint o th e wi tne ss’ sto ry to t e st t he wi tne ss’ pe rc e pti on s and

me mor y , b ut t he c ro ss- e xami ne r h a s tr a dit ion a lly be e n a llo we d to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness. . . . [T]he exposure of a witness’ motivation in testifying is a

proper and important func tion of the constitutionally protec ted right of cross- examination. Id. at3 1 6
. T hu s , th e p r i o r o p p o rtun i ty t o c r o s s - e x am i n e r e qu i r e d b y Cra wfo rd

must serve that same func tion. Pe op lev . F

ry , 92 P.3d 970, 978 (Colo. 2004). 36 State v. Lopez , No. SC05-88, ___ So.2d ___, 2008 Fla. L EXI S 1 at *20 (Fla . J an.10, 37 2008). 497 U.S. 836 (1990). In Cra ig , a close ly divided, 5-4 Supreme Court he ld: 38 wher e nec essar

y to protect a

child witness from tra

uma that would be c aused by te sti fy ingin t he phy sic a l pr e se nc e of

thede fe nd ant, at le a st whe resu c h tr a uma would impair the child’s a bility to communicate, the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit use of a proc edurethat, despite the a bsenceof fa ce- to-fac e confr ontation, ensures the reliability of the e vidence by

subjectingit to rigorous adver sarial testingand ther eby prese rves the e ssence of ef fec tive confr ontation. A fter C ra w

f ord , t her e i s no r oom for ar gui ng t hatw r i t t en i nt er r ogat or i es ar e an
acc ept abl e s u b s t i tu t e f

or l i ve cr os s - exami nat i on. I n l i ght of C raw f ord , t h e Co l o r a d o S u p r e me C our t hel d t hati t s pr el i m i nar yhear i ngs , w hi ch ar e usu all yr es t r i ct ed t o an as s es s m entof pr obabl e ca us e and l i m i t t h e defe ndant ’ s r i ght of cr os s - exami nat i on, do “notpr ovi de an adeq uate opp ort un i t yt o c ro ss -exa m i ne suf fi ci ent t o sat i sfyt he C on front at i on C l ause requi rem ents
. ” M ore r ecentl y , t he F l ori da S up rem e C ou rtheld t hat di scoverydep osi t i on s, 36 dur i ng w hi ch t he def

endantneed n o t b e p rese nt , “do notfunct i on as t he equi val entof t he

c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t y e n v i s i o n e d b y C raw f ord .” 37 T he SPA r el i es heavi l yupon M a ry la n d v . C ra ig for t he pr opos i t i on t hat“t he r i ght 38Rang el DissentingOpinion Page17

Be causethere is no dispute that the child witnesses in this case testified unde r oath, wer e subjec t to full cross-examination, and wer e able to be observe d by the jud g e , ju ry , a nd de fe nd ant a s th e y

te sti fi e d, wec on c lud e that, t o th e e xtent th at a pr op e r f ind ingof ne c e ssi ty ha s b e e n ma de , th e a dmi ssi on of su c h te sti mony

wo uld be consona

nt with the Confrontation Clause. Id. at 857. Only

one of theSupreme Court justices who joined the ma jority in Cra ig is stil l on the cour t. J ustice Scalia, who wrote the opinions in both Cra wfo rd and Da v is , wrote a

bitter dissent in Craig wh ic h b e g an a s f oll ow s: Seldom has this C ourt failed so c onspicuously to sustain a cate g orica l gua rante e of theCon sti tut ion

a g a ins t th e tid e of

pr e va ili ngc ur

re nt o pin ion . T he Sixth Amendment provide s, with unmist akable clarity , that “in all criminal prosec utions, the acc used shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses ag ainst him.” The purpose of enshrining this protec tion in the Con sti tut ion

wa s to a ssu

rethat no ne of

themany po lic y int e re sts from t ime to time pursued by

statutory law could ove rcome a def endant’ s right to facehis or her a ccuse rs in court. Id. at 860. Id. 39 to c o n f ro n tatio n d o e s n o t g u a ra n tee th e g o ld sta n d a rd in e v e ry c a se .” P o ss ib lyn o t, bu t C ra ig
cer t ai nl ydi d r equi r e t hatt he chi l d t es t i fyunderoat h, be s ubj ect t o “ful l cr os s - exami nat i on, and be obs er ved byt he j udge, j ur y , and def endantdur i n g t hatt es t i m ony . ” A nd aft er 39 C raw f ordand D a v is , c o n f

ro n tatio n a n d th e o p p o rtu n ity f o r cro ss -e x a m in a tio n a re n o t m e re ly “t he gol d s t andar d, ” t heyar e ca t egor i cal i m per at i ves . T her e i s no s ubs t i t ut e. I t her efor e r es pect ful l ydi s s entt o t he C our t ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s t hi s cas e as “i m pr ovi dent l ygr ant ed. ” W e s houl d addr es s appel l ant ’ s pr oper l y pr es er ved and pr es ent ed

c o n s titu tio n a l c la im
.

Fi l ed: Febr uar y13, 2008 P ub l i sh