Opinion ID: 2075944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judge Bacon's Ruling.

Text: 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.