Opinion ID: 6928543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Initial Statements About Abuse

Text: We consider first the girls’ initial statements to the day-care workers. In evaluating the admissibility of these remarks, the trial court made three reliability findings of the type explicitly approved by the Court in Wright: (1) neither girl had a motive to lie; (2) both girls described sexual acts in specific terms, using age-appropriate language; and (3) most of the statements were spontaneous responses to open-ended questions or to no questions at all. The court also found that the girls had a reputation for truthfulness and that the disclosures were made to adults who had relationships of trust with the girls. These latter factors do not seem inappropriate, given Wright’s emphasis that trial courts have considerable leeway in making reliability determinations. But the court relied improperly upon one additional factor. It observed that the girls “made the statements on two consecutive days without the children having discussed the matter and giving basically the same content to the statements, I think is a strong indicator of reliability.” This is impermissible bootstrapping as the court referenced other evidence in finding cross-corroboration of each child’s statements. 5 “To be admissible under the Confrontation Clause, hearsay evidence used to convict a defendant must possess indicia of reliability by virtue of its inherent trustworthiness, not by reference to other evidence at trial.” Id. at 822, 110 S.Ct. at 3150 (emphasis added). We do not analyze separately the findings of the Washington Supreme Court as it agreed generally with the trial court’s determinations. See Swan, 790 P.2d at 628-30. The district court conducted an independent review of the transcripts. It agreed with the state courts that (1) the statements were spontaneous; (2) neither girl had a motive to lie; (3) they did not have a tendency to lie; and (4) most significant to the district court, the statements included “a description of oral intercourse which was so  specific, and showed such inappropriate and precocious knowledge, that it would be difficult to see this knowledge as anything other than the result of personal experience.” But the court also made the same bootstrapping mistake as did the state courts. It found relevant that “[t]he allegations made by the girls were consistent, both with one another’s reports and with each girl’s later reports of the same activities.” (emphasis added). ■ Nevertheless, we do not conclude that the bootstrapping errors of the state courts and the district court tainted their reliability determinations. Neither the state courts nor the district court indicated that cross-corroboration was a primary reason for finding the statements reliable; indeed, the district court found most significant the knowledge of sexual acts unexpected of children of that age.
We turn next to the other reliability findings. In particular, the Swans dispute that the statements were spontaneous. They say that the day-care workers prompted the girls’ initial remarks. According to her preliminary testimony, Conradi told B.A. that no-one should touch her private parts and the girl responded “Mommy and Daddy do.” Although this statement did not come out of the blue, it was not made in response to any question posed by Conradi. Other statements made by B.A. at that time seemed impulsive, such as when, while playing a game of peekaboo, the girl said that “My daddy puts his penis in my mouth and icky milk comes out.” Similarly, R.T.’s statements were made in response to Bratvold’s open-ended questions, such as “What kinds of games do you play with Bill [Swan]?” This contrasts with the leading questions the Supreme Court criticized in Wright. See 497 U.S. at 810, 110 5.Ct. at 3144 (“Do you play with daddy? Does daddy play with you? Does daddy touch you with his pee-pee? Do you touch his pee-pee?”). 6 We find no clear error in the state and district courts’ spontaneity determinations.
We also find no clear error in the finding that the girls had no motive to lie. The Swans do not suggest any motive. They contend instead that the day-care workers, and particularly Conradi, were biased. That, however, does not suggest that the girls themselves had a reason to lie. Next, the Swans argue that the courts erred in finding that the girls were generally not prone to lie. They note that R.T.’s father testified that she occasionally had make-believe companions and pretended to have gone somewhere the day before when she had not. And she told the police that “Jerry,” possibly a reference to her father Gerald, put “marbles” in her genital area. She said that she had related the same information to Bratvold, who denied that R.T. had made such a statement to her. The testimony of R.T.’s father is not dispositive. Children pretend. This dpes pot reveal a tendency to prevaricate. R.T.’s later statement- about “Jerry” suggests a possible problem with lying. Whether the Swans may rely on a later statement to undermine the reliability of R.T.’s earlier statements, however, is unclear. Wright forbids using other corroborating evidence at trial to show that an initial hearsay statement is reliable. The issue here is subtly different: can arguably noncorroborating evidence be used to demonstrate the unreliability of a hearsay statement? Wright’s caution against reference to other evidence at trial suggests not. 7 Regardless, the district court considered this later statement but discounted it. The court reasoned that the accusation was ambiguous and that, by that time, several adults had questioned R.T. and the spontaneity surrounding her answers had faded. This determination was not clearly erroneous.
The Swans say that R.T.’s faulty performance at the competency hearing preeludes a finding that her hearsay statements had sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. 8 The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in Wright. Id. 497 U.S. at 825, 110 S.Ct. at 3151-52 (“the Confrontation Clause does not erect a per se rule barring admission of prior statements of a declarant who is unable to communicate to the jury at the time of trial”). The Swans would distinguish Wright, arguing that there the trial court found the child incapable only of communicating to the jury but here the incompetency problems were broader and more damaging. The trial court recognized the distinction between R.T.’s ability to testify in a courtroom setting and to tell the truth at the time of the declarations. It clearly considered her incompetent only as to the former. We defer to its finding.
The Swans say that the statements were unreliable because the day-care workers, especially Conradi, were pre-disposed to find child abuse. Amicus supports this position. Amicus essentially makes a policy argument that in cases involving nontraditional hearsay exceptions, the trial court should be vigilant in assessing reliability by making a preliminary evaluation of the reporting witness’ credibility. Whatever the merits of this view, a federal habeas court may not prescribe evidentiary rules for the states. We may grant relief only if there is serious constitutional error. We do not read the Confrontation Clause as mandating a threshold assessment of the reporting witness’s credibility before the admission of hearsay evidence. The Supreme Court has limited the reliability inquiry required by the Clause to whether the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement “render the declarant particularly worthy of belief.” Id. 497 U.S. at 820, 110 S.Ct. at 3149 (emphasis added). Unlike the declarant, the reporting witness is subjected to cross-examination and the requirements of an oath. See United States v. Hinkson, 632 F.2d 382, 385 (4th Cir.1980) (discussing trustworthiness requirement included in the analogous residual hearsay exception, Fed.R.Evid. 803(24)). See also John E.B. Myers, Evidence in Child Abuse and Neglect, § 7.45, at 249, 262, 264 (2d ed. 1992) (reporting witness’ credibility not a reliability factor that surrounds the making of the statement). The jury, not the trial judge, must weigh the reporting witness’s credibility. Obviously the trial court must make some inquiries, such as deciding whether a witness is competent to testify. But the Confrontation Clause does not require the court to take basic credibility determinations from the jury.