Opinion ID: 2075944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: W.D.'s PRIOR ALLEGATIONS

Text: W.D. instituted a suit for damages against Roundtree and the District of Columbia in connection with the incident which precipitated this prosecution. During discovery in the civil action, the defendants obtained records from juvenile authorities in Minnesota, as well as testimony from W.D., which reflected the young woman's troubled life. My colleagues have summarized the contents of these records, maj. op. at 318-319, but the same facts come across a little differently to me. In my view, the information from Minnesota, together with W.D.'s admitted prevarications after she arrived in Washington, provide, at least, a bona fide and reasonable basis to believe that some of her prior charges of sexual abuse were fabricated. When W.D. was thirteen, the director of an institution for girls in that state described her as one of the most severe victims of chronic emotional and physical neglect that I have ever encountered. She was apparently a victim of incest at 12, pregnant at 13, a mother at 14, and a prostitute at 15 or 16. With an I.Q. of 68 and second to fourth grade skills, W.D. had been exposed to marijuana, cocaine, pimps and a sordid lifestyle by her middle teens. Such an existence takes its toll. We would surely be blind to reality if we were to pretend that one who has endured so much can escape without potential erosion not only of her trust in authority but also of her credibility. The records from Minnesota show that W.D. had claimed to have been the victim of rape or incest or sexual abuse by a substantial number of different men, including, at least, [3] the following:

Although some of W.D.'s claimed experiences, especially those with pimps, may well go with the lifestyle, the records on their face provide substantial reason to question the veracity of some of her allegations. [6] With respect to her half-brother Hank, W.D. alleged at different times that he had sex with her (1) weekly since she was twelve; (2) a total of four or five times; and (3) never. W.D.'s allegations that a 22-year old counsellor at Juvenile Horizons had inappropriately stroked her butt was particularly suspect. It was investigated by the police and by the Juvenile Horizons authorities, and a comprehensive report was prepared by the latter. The counsellor had come to Juvenile Horizons with excellent references, and had worked with young women before. The writer of the report interviewed two psychiatrists, a psychologist, the program director, the staff supervisor, and three separate social workers, including the one primarily assigned to work with W.D. Without exception, these individuals doubted W.D.'s veracity, largely because, as those who had worked with her unanimously agreed, she had a history of making false allegations in the past. Dr. Madamala, a staff psychiatrist at a Child Guidance Clinic, reported that W.D. is a very angry child who has lied to the J.H. staff several times in the past. Ms. Pruden, the program director, related that W.D. had lied to the staff in the past and was probably lying in the report about child abuse. Ms. Arenson, W.D.'s primary social worker, stated that in the past [W.D.] had lied and exaggerated stories in order to get attention. Ms. Dawkins, another social worker, related that W.D. has a history of making up stories, and that it is her style to make up accusations as a power play. Mr. Lord, the staff supervisor, stated that he took W.D.'s accusations with a grain of salt because of past questionable allegations by her, and that he believed the accused counsellor's denials. Dr. Reed, who conducted a psychological evaluation of W.D., found that she was able to scare and intimidate people with her hostile physical and verbal aggression, and concluded that W.D.'s objective and reality testing is very tenuous and at least moderately impaired. Dr. Arnold, who also examined W.D., reported on her exaggeration of symptoms, lack of cooperation, rebelliousness and anti-authority feelings. Dr. Gendron of the Fairview Hospital Adolescent Treatment Program stated that W.D. had a history of aggressivity and blaming. One psychiatrist reported that W.D. had an impaired sense of reality. Unsurprisingly, in light of the foregoing assessments of W.D., the complaint was closed as unable to substantiate, or unsubstantiated. The treatment team found reason to suspect that the incident may have occurred, but deemed the evidence insufficient in the absence of corroboration. [7] The most recent of W.D.'s complaints in Minnesota was made in March of 1985; she reported that a pimp had forced her to have sex and to work the streets as a prostitute. [8] According to her deposition testimony in her civil suit, W.D. then travelled with a pimp in a brown Cadillac to Detroit, Chicago, New York and Washington, working as a prostitute in all of these cities. [9] In May 1985, she was arrested in Washington on a charge of soliciting for prostitution. She gave the police a false name [10] and lied about her age. [11] She was being held at the District of Columbia jail following this arrest at the time of her encounter with Roundtree.
The government moved in limine prior to Roundtree's first trial for an order precluding any inquiry by the defense into W.D.'s prior allegations of sexual abuse. After having inspected the materials, [12] and before any voir dire was held, Judge Bacon stated that unless there is additional evidence about any of these matters ... they would not constitute evidence of bias.       My view is that at this time there is no basis for inquiry into prior accusations. Conscientiously protecting his record, the prosecutor suggested that a proposed voir dire of W.D., which was to be conducted in order to determine her competency, be expanded to include her prior allegations of sexual abuse, although I can proffer to the court based on my prior discussions that the court is on the money. The judge followed the prosecutor's suggestion and reserved ruling. The ensuing voir dire was conducted exclusively by the judge outside the presence of the jury. During the course of her testimony, W.D. tearfully repeated her allegation that she had been sexually abused by her brother Hank. She explained that she had later denied the truth of the charge because she did not want the police to be involved with her mother. She related that she did not report to the police abuse by her mother's friend because my mom was going through a lot of problems and I didn't feel that she would trust me or believe me. She confirmed that she had made complaints about the counsellor at Juvenile Horizons and about assaults by pimps. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge granted the motion in limine because there is no substantial basis for concluding that these assaults are fabrication... To permit inquiry into these prior incidents, I believe, would be matters that are precluded by McLean [ [13] ] and Sherer [ [14] ] and that the voir dire does not provide a basis for exceptions to McLean or Sherer. The judge followed up her oral decision with a brief written order in which she emphasized that W.D.'s various complaints had not been convincingly shown to be false and that W.D.'s failure to prosecute incidents of sexual abuse did not establish their falsity. She cited Sherer, supra, 470 A.2d at 739, and Hughes v. Raines, 641 F.2d 790, 792 (9th Cir.1981), on which the court in Sherer had relied.