Opinion ID: 1940967
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Matters Relating to Child Witnesses

Text: Appellant moved to exclude the testimony of certain child witnesses, claiming that improper and unduly suggestive interrogation techniques rendered the children's testimony and statements too unreliable to be admitted pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In the same motion, appellant sought discovery concerning the investigative interviews that were conducted with the children, asking the court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the witnesses have been tainted by the conduct of their questioners, requiring that their statements be excluded from the trial. Initially, the trial court held the request for such a taint hearing in abeyance. The court did not see how the defense can make that motion without having some knowledge or more knowledge and more discovery about the case. At the same time, however, the court authorized the defense to retain an expert on child witness issues such as memory susceptibility and manipulation and fabrication. The court invited the government to file a motion on the admissibility of expert testimony on these issues, which were la[id] out... in [defense counsel's] taint motion. The government subsequently moved to preclude the defense from presenting expert testimony on the suggestibility of children, [3] citing Oliver v. United States, 711 A.2d 70 (D.C.1998) (approving expert testimony on the psychology of child sexual abuse victims and the reasons for recantation); the defense responded that such expert testimony was admissible. [4] The court ruled that it would be proper for [the] defense to have the [expert] witness testify as to which studies say what might influence a child [such as] repeated questioning, suggestive interviews ... [and] those things that are listed in the pleading. The court reserved ruling on whether the expert would be permitted to comment specifically about the interviews in this case. However, after defense counsel filed a memorandum on the reserved issue, the defense expert was permitted at trial to give the full scope of testimony that the defense had requested, i.e., testimony about child interviewing techniques generally and also about the specific interviewing techniques used in this case.