Law Commons^™

"Sweet Childish Days": Using Developmental Psychology Research In Evaluating The Admissibility Of Out-Of-Court Statements By Young Children, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

A three-year-old child, while being bathed by her babysitter, innocently mentions that her “pee-pee” hurts. When the babysitter asks the child how she hurt it, she says, “Uncle Ernie (her mother’s boyfriend) told me not to tell.” A subsequent medical examination reveals that the child has gonorrhea, a sexually transmitted disease.

By the time of trial, the child is four and-a-half-years old. When questioned by the trial judge, she cannot explain to the judge’s satisfaction, “the difference between the truth and a lie.” Moreover, she has no long term memory of the incident. The judge rules the child incompetent to …

Shaping The Contours Of Domestic Justice: The International Criminal Court And An Admissibility Challenge In The Uganda Situation, William W. Burke-White, Scott Kaplan

All Faculty Scholarship

In December 2003, the Government of Uganda referred the situation in conflict-torn northern Uganda to the nascent International Criminal Court. It was the first referral by a State Party under Article 14 of the Rome Statute of ICC and led to the indictment of five leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). Four years later, Uganda found itself in the midst of promising peace negotiations with the LRA. A major obstacle to a final agreement was the refusal of the indicted leaders to face ICC justice. Seeking to peacefully resolve the conflict, the Government signed a preliminary agreement in which …

Post-Crawford: Time To Liberalize The Substantive Admissibility Of A Testifying Witness's Prior Consistent Statements, Lynn Mclain

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Tome v. United States has read Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) to prevent the prosecution's offering a child abuse victim's prior consistent statements as substantive evidence. As a result of that decision, the statements will also be inadmissible even for the limited purpose of helping to evaluate the credibility of a child, if there is a serious risk that the out-of-court statements would be used on the issue of guilt or innocence.

Moreover, after the Court's March 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, which redesigned the landscape of Confrontation Clause analysis, other …