Prior Statements of a Witness: A Nettlesome Corner of the Hearsay Thicket (From Supreme Court Review, P 277-321, 1996, Dennis J. Hutchinson, David A. Strauss, et al, eds. - See NCJ 163692)

• NCJ Number: 163699
• Author(s): R D Friedman
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 45 pages
• Sale Source: University of Chicago Press
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Tome v. United States focused on child sexual abuse and the issue of the rule against hearsay and the right of the accused to confront opposing witnesses; the case demonstrates the inadequacy of law concerning the admissibility of a witness's prior statements.

Abstract

The Tome decision focused on a seemingly technical question concerning the interpretation of a provision in the hearsay portion of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The child who had allegedly been abused was young when she made the statements indicating abuse and when she testified at trial. However, the case indicates that the current deficiencies in hearsay law result partly from the Court's longstanding unwillingness to recognize that a party may be substantially hindered in trying to examine a witness with respect to a prior statement the truth of which the witness no longer affirms. However, a complete solution to the problem would require a major restructuring of the law of hearsay and the right to confront witnesses. Reshaping the law would require a change in the law of confrontation. The Court can accomplish this change either by defining the confrontation right without relying on the confusing categorizations of the hearsay law or by recognize that the mere fact that someone who made a prior statement testifies at trial does not necessarily imply that the opponent has had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine. Footnotes