Court Opinion

ID: 9473840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:41:10.156435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:45.816390
License: Public Domain

SNEEDEN, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I agree with Judge Murnaghan’s conclusion that the admission of the hearsay statements of the child victim, who was found incompetent to testify, violated this defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. In fact, I find myself in accord with the Court’s opinion in all respects, but for one sentence. It is only out of abundance of caution not to mislead that I do not join completely. I concur separately to set out my own views on the following language in the Court’s opinion: “It is controlling, however, to note in the present case that, where her identification was the sole evidence of the perpetrator’s identity, the victim’s testimony contained no sufficient assurance of accuracy.”
We do not need to reach the issue of whether there must be corroborating evidence of a hearsay identification of the perpetrator by a child witness. It is not my wish to join in language which could be *958interpreted to require such corroboration in future cases not before me.
I am satisfied to join the district court which held that, considering the record as a whole, there were insufficient “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” as required by Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), to ensure that the hearsay statements were reliable, and I would affirm solely on that ground.