DCFS Reform Advocates Buzzing about Ruling Barring Hearsay
DCFS reform advocates made quite a buzz on the Internet today by disseminating what appears to be an important ruling in A.G.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded a decision by a lower court which terminated parental rights because of sexual abuse. The court found that a child's statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician during a physical examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court case, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child.
Because the child's statements were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Cite: NO. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. 2004-CA-002032-ME, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 163 (Ky. Ct. App 2005)
Advocates also noted a District of Columbia case, in re TY.B & In re TI.B, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his children, based on that court's finding of neglect; the appeals court holding that the erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the father adequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony, and consequently reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Cite: No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005)
Some view this as an interesting scenario when domestic violence charges are levelled and a police arrest is made--and they don't testify as to what they saw, or if they testify that they weren't there to see the incident occur, it is considered hearsay and inadmissable.
Some advocates argue that this scenario would mean throwing the case out based on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, and creating a potential legal liability for law enforcement and the accuser for false swearing and making false statements to law enforcement officials; malicious prosecution and malicious abuse/use/misuse of process, harassment, and assault, false arrest and false imprisonment.
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded a decision by a lower court which terminated parental rights because of sexual abuse. The court found that a child's statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician during a physical examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court case, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child.
Because the child's statements were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Cite: NO. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. 2004-CA-002032-ME, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 163 (Ky. Ct. App 2005)
Advocates also noted a District of Columbia case, in re TY.B & In re TI.B, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his children, based on that court's finding of neglect; the appeals court holding that the erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the father adequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony, and consequently reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Cite: No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005)
Some view this as an interesting scenario when domestic violence charges are levelled and a police arrest is made--and they don't testify as to what they saw, or if they testify that they weren't there to see the incident occur, it is considered hearsay and inadmissable.
Some advocates argue that this scenario would mean throwing the case out based on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, and creating a potential legal liability for law enforcement and the accuser for false swearing and making false statements to law enforcement officials; malicious prosecution and malicious abuse/use/misuse of process, harassment, and assault, false arrest and false imprisonment.
posted by Michael Burns at 11:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home