Idaho v. Wright: The Defenestration of Corroborating Evidence
![handle is hein.journals/umialr46 and id is 217 raw text is: CASE COMMENT
Idaho v. Wright: The Defenestration of
Corroborating Evidence
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 205
11. GENERAL THEMES AND PERSPECTIVE ................................... 209
A. Child Sexual Abuse and the Law's Response ........................... 209
B. The Residual Hearsay Exception ..................................... 215
III. IDAHO v. WRIGHt. DISSECTION ......................................... 220
IV. CORROBORATION OR CONSEQUENCES .................................... 224
A. An Overview of Corroboration .......... ........................... 224
1. CASES ANALYZING CORROBORATING EVIDENCE .................... 224
2. CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME THE STATEMENT WAS MADE ......... 226
3. CORROBORATION AND THE CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE HEARSAY
EXCEPTIONS ................................................... 227
B. Putting Corroboration to Work ...................................... 229
V. CONCLUSION ............................................................. 233
I. INTRODUCTION
Child sexual abuse is one of the most difficult crimes to detect
and prosecute, in large part because there often are no witnesses
except the victim.' A successful prosecution often depends in large
part upon accusations made by the child victim. Many times a trial
turns solely on a child's out-of-court statements.2 The unique nature
of a child sexual abuse prosecution presents courts, lawmakers, prose-
cutors, and defense attorneys with a variety of complex and challeng-
ing legal questions.3 State and federal courts have become
increasingly familiar with these problems, and a growing body of case
law has emerged. The United States Supreme Court, however, has
only infrequently and tangentially passed on child sexual abuse
1. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987).
2. Brief of Amici Curiae American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children,
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, National Organization for
Women, National Association of Counsel for Children, State of Rhode Island Office of the
Child Advocate, and Support Center for Child Advocates at 4, Idaho v. Wright, 110 S. Ct.
3139 (1990) (No. 89-260) [hereinafter Brief of APSAC].
3. See Judy Yun, Note, A Comprehensive Approach to Child Hearsay Statements in Sex
Abuse Cases, 83 COLUM. L. REV. 1745, 1745-46 (1983); see also sources cited infra notes 31-
53.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/umialr46&div=12&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Idaho v. Wright: The Defenestration of Corroborating Evidence
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most