Opinion ID: 165278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements to Social Worker

Text: On direct appeal to the AFCCA, Rios claimed the trial court erred in “admitting an excerpted, unsigned and undated statement . . . from a report written by . . . the civilian social worker responsible for handling [his daughter’s] juvenile dependency case.” Rios, 45 M.J. at 564. The AFCCA found no error, concluding that the social worker was not acting as an agent of military law enforcement at the time she met with Rios and the excerpt clearly fell within the business record exception to the hearsay rule because the social worker was required to produce the report pursuant to internal office rules and regulations. Id. at 566-67. The CAAF denied review of the issue. -9- Rios raised the issue again in his Petition for Extraordinary Relief, alleging the military judge violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness by admitting the social worker’s report. Finding that this issue had been adequately considered in his direct appeal, the AFCCA denied relief. Similarly, the district court, in denying Rios’ § 2241 petition, concluded the military courts fairly considered and rejected the issue. On appeal, Rios claims the military judge erred by admitting the social worker’s report because it was inadmissible hearsay as well as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness. The Sixth Amendment provides a criminal defendant the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. C ONST . amend. VI. In Ohio v. Roberts, the Supreme Court held that an unavailable witness’ out-of-court statements may be admitted consistent with the Sixth Amendment so long as they have an adequate indicia of reliability, namely they fall within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bear “particularlized guarantees of trustworthiness.” 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980). Recently, however, the Supreme Court rejected this test for testimonial hearsay. Crawford v. Washington, __ U.S. __, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 1374 (2004). In Crawford, the Court concluded the Sixth Amendment bars out-of-court statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature unless the witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id. Crawford, however, did not -10- extend these protections to non-testimonial hearsay. Id. “Where non-testimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law–as does Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether.” Id. Because non-testimonial hearsay is at issue here, the reliability test of Roberts applies. The social worker’s report in this case clearly falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception–the business records exception of Rule 803(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 7 Thus, no constitutional violation occurred. Additionally, we 7 The business records exception to the hearsay rule provides: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: