Court Opinion

ID: 9625941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:56:49.975483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:17.987669
License: Public Domain

NEELY, Justice,
concurring:
This case is just one more example of the dangers of lowering the standards of proof because we “know” that the defendant “must” be guilty. The prosecution has been caught up in prosecuting the latest crime of fashion: sexual abuse of one’s own children. See State ex. rel. Spaulding v. Watt, 188 W.Va. 124, 423 S.E.2d 217 (Neely, J., dissenting); State v. Delaney, 187 W.Va. 212, 417 S.E.2d 903 (1992) (Neely, J., dissenting). Here, the prosecutor admitted that he did not have the evidence to sustain the convictions, and that “Pam Rockwell is my case." 1 Today, this Court has finally seen fit to take a stand against the witch hunt which has been driven, at least in part, by hostile divorce proceedings.
Pamela Rockwell,2 the prosecution’s entire case, testified to the ultimate fact at *133issue in this ease: she testified that Mr. Walter abused his child, Timmy. She testified to this after a couple of meetings with the child. The child apparently was unable to tell anybody what, if anything, occurred. If the victim (a child of four) cannot testify competently, how can Pamela Rockwell, (short of having a bone in her nose and tossing colored stones) testify to the ultimate fact merely by interviewing that very same child? Such unreliable evidence has become the fuel that drives our system towards conviction of the innocent. This may occur in two ways: a jury may convict as it did in this case, on woefully incompetent and traditionally inadmissible evidence; or, the accused may be so terrorized by the totally stacked deck from which his judicial cards are about to be drawn that he pleads guilty.
Just as we have concerns about physical science, and the reliability of “scientific” tests which tend to prove the ultimate question for the jury, we have even more anxiety about psychological tests, particularly when they are conducted by witch doctors rather than regular doctors. In State v. Woodall, 182 W.Va. 15, 385 S.E.2d 253 (1989), we held:
Certainly a test clothed with all the trappings of science, but which is not scientifically accepted, is more misleading or prejudicial than it is probative. Pseudoscience is more dangerous than no science at all.
Woodall, 182 W.Va. at 21-22, 385 S.E.2d at 259. Our general concerns in admitting “scientific” testimony are whether the “test” itself is inherently reliable and whether both sides receive full and fair opportunities to examine all of the evidence that the expert used to draw the conclusions presented at trial.3 State v. Thomas, 187 W.Va. 686, 690-92, 421 S.E.2d 227, 231-33 (1992). The same pseudo-science problem also exists when “expert” psychological testimony is used to implicate a defendant. The courts must make sure that the techniques used are reliable, that there is credible support for the assertions made, and that the defense has a full opportunity to examine all sources of information used by the prosecution’s expert.
In this case, Pamela Rockwell’s testimony appears to be the ultimate in pseudoscience. Despite its apparent unreliability, Pamela Rockwell’s hearsay testimony was admitted into evidence because the circuit court considered it a “statement for the purpose of medical treatment.”4 Howev*134er, it is clear that Pamela Rockwell’s primary function was to prepare testimony for court, not to give any medical treatment. Furthermore, Ms. Rockwell apparently embellished her tales to the point of convincing the jury to convict Mr. Walter of first-degree sexual assault and first-degree sexual abuse, counts which are directly contradicted by the physical evidence.5
Ms. Rockwell’s assertions appear to have been totally without support; and because Ms. Rockwell was the prosecution’s “entire case,” there was no evidence to convict Mr. Walter. Accordingly, justice demands that we overturn the conviction and remand the case to the circuit court for a judgment of acquittal under Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978).
In Burks, the U.S. Supreme Court held:
[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient, [therefore] the only ‘just’ remedy available for that court is the direction of a judgment of acquittal.
Burks, 437 U.S. at 18, 98 S.Ct. at 2150. Furthermore, the circuit court should not be inhibited by the fact that Mr. Walter moved for a new trial:
[I]t makes no difference that a defendant has sought a new trial as one of his remedies, or even as the sole remedy. It cannot be meaningfully said that a person “waives” his right to a judgment of acquittal by moving for a new trial.
Burks, 437 U.S. at 17, 98 S.Ct. at 2150.
Once already, the State presented the circuit court with a wholly insufficient case against Mr. Walter. The prosecutor pursued this case only because of the mass hysteria surrounding allegations of this particular crime of fashion. It would clearly place Mr. Walter in double jeopardy to allow the State to attempt to prove the case that it already has failed to prove. This case is just one of many similar child sexual abuse prosecutions that have been brought in Putnam County. It certainly appears as if a witch hunt is taking place, only this time the charge is child sexual abuse instead of sorcery. Putnam County is not unique; statewide and nationwide, we have seen a disturbing trend towards an increase in this type of unsubstantiated charge. The mere accusation of sexual abuse instantaneously produces a stain that mars the reputation of the accused irrespective of whether the accused committed the offense. There is no way to disprove the accusation to the complete satisfaction of the public. Yet often, the charges merely stem from people trying to obtain leverage in bitter divorce proceedings and custody battles.6
It is time for prosecutors to start thinking seriously about raising the standards for the cases they bring, and the courts must work to ensure that the evidence *135brought before them is reliable and probative before admitting the evidence or submitting the case to the jury. Increasing convictions at the expense of justice serves • no legitimate end! Such convictions are simply a type of political theater more worthy of China in the 1960’s than of the United States in the 1990’s,

. Trial transcript at 213.

. We have dealt with Ms. Rockwell before as an expert on several occasions. Each time we have been significantly underwhelmed by her methods, techniques and biased perspective:
On the other hand, the "expert psychological” testimony was provided by Ms. Pamela Rockwell, a sexual assault counselor with a bachelor's degree. Ms. Rockwell testified from her meetings with the victims that their behavior was consistent with having been sexually assaulted. However, she did not inquire into the children’s backgrounds concerning other possible causes for their behavior; she did not talk to their teachers; and she did not talk to anyone who knew them before the assaults. She also testified that in her line of work she *133is basically an advocate for victims. This is ridiculous! [Emphasis original]
State v. Delaney, 187 W.Va. 212, 218, 417 S.E.2d 903, 909 (1992) (Neely, J., dissenting).
Pamela Rockwell’s testimony in this trial has served to reinforce my conclusion that "the so-called rape-trauma experts who testify in criminal cases in this State could not be less credible if they wore bones in their noses and prognosticated by throwing colored stones.” Delaney, 187 W.Va. 212, 218 note 2, 417 S.E.2d 903, 909 note 2 (Neely, J., dissenting).

. As we noted in State v. Thomas:
Cross-examination is the engine of truth; in order for evidence of scientific tests to be considered reliable by the courts, the tests must be subject to the fullest cross-examination possible.... This is a problem of the first order: should it be present in a criminal trial, pseudo-science is eminently convincing because it is accompanied by all the mumbo-jumbo of real science.
Thomas, 187 W.Va. 686, 691, 421 S.E.2d 227, 232 (1992).

. Apparently, portions of Ms. Rockwell’s testimony were admitted on the grounds that Ms. Rockwell was an expert under W.Va.Rule of Evidence 702, and other portions of her testimony were admitted under the hearsay exception contained in W. Va.Rule of Evidence 803(4) for:
Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.
However, to be admitted, the evidence still must pass the general burden of being more probative than prejudicial under Rule 403. To meet that burden, the testimony must have internal indicia of reliability. Normally, we assume that when one talks to a doctor for purposes of treatment that one is telling the truth so the doctor can properly treat the injury. However, in situations such as this where the primary purpose of the examination is to prepare for trial, we must examine the statement to make sure that there are significant indicia of reliability within the statement itself due to the lack of significant consequences for an incomplete or incorrect disclosure. This standard needs to be met for Pamela Rockwell’s hearsay testimony to be admissible. See Idaho v. *134Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990); Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980).

. After the close of the trial (but before the sentencing), Mr. Sorsaia, the prosecutor, told the circuit court:
I can’t in good faith stand here in front of the Court and argue that there is evidence on the record to support incest and assault.
Transcript of post-trial motions on 10 October 1990 and 4 February 1991, at 8. Mr. Sorsaia’s reasoning was based on the lack of physical evidence to support the counts:
After my recollection of what happened at the trial, Your Honor, I’m not aware of any evidence of penetration. And State takes the position, Your Honor, we don’t oppose the dismissal of Counts 2 and 3 based on that....
Based upon my recollection, my good faith recollection, Your Honor, I can't say that there was any evidence of penetration in the record.
Transcript of post-trial motions on 10 October 1990 and 4 February 1991, at 14. The lawyers for both sides agree, and a reading of the record confirms, that there was absolutely no evidence to support the conviction on the count of incest, nor was there any evidence to support the conviction on the count of sexual assault.

. It is abundantly clear from the record that there was an acrimonious divorce and custody battle between Amy Walter and Chester Walter being waged during this criminal prosecution.