Minnesota Law Review

Note, Presuming Innocence: Expanding the Confrontation Clause Analysis to Protect Children and Defendants in Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions

When a child is suspected of being sexually abused, child advocacy centers provide a supportive environment where social workers, doctors, and psychologists may assess the child’s needs. Forensic interviews are a specialty of the centers. The interviews are often video recorded, and the videotape may later be introduced into evidence. Because children often do not testify at trial due to competency and other issues, statements made during the forensic interviews face hearsay problems and potentially violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. As a result of Crawford v. Washington, “testimonial” hearsay—later defined as statements made when the primary purpose of the interview was to establish events for prosecution—is only admissible if the witness is unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him.

This Note argues that focusing on the primary purpose of an interview is insufficient to determine whether statements made during these forensic interviews are testimonial. Child advocacy centers have multiple aspirations—including protection of the child’s health and welfare—and fighting over which of those goals is primary can cause courts to ignore circumstances that can, in fact, make the child’s statements testimonial. Expanding the Confrontation Clause analysis to include presumptions ensures a better analysis of the statements. Where prosecutors are directly involved in the interview, or where there is no adversarial-like testing or corroboration of the child’s story, the statements should be presumed testimonial. As this Note will show, such a solution protects defendants from the violation of their rights, and it protects children from the damaging prosecutorial abuses which have haunted child sexual abuse cases in the past.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]