I see. I’d never heard of that before. So it’s a state, but not federal, thing?
I never understood the whole Constitutional basis for banning hearsay in the first place.
It has to do with confronting the witnesses against you. In the example, Alice is providing the information that John raped her. Mary is just passing it on. Cross-examining Mary is not going to be helpful in determining whether Alice was truthful when she said that. That’s why exceptions to the hearsay rule involve situations where people are likely to be telling the truth - information given to a 911 operator (“excited utterance”) or to obtain medical treatment or against your own interest ( If John told Mary he raped Alice, that would be admissible) or when you know you are about to die. Also some records - technically a birth or marriage certificate is hearsay.
I assume that the detail would be proof that it’s not a made-up complaint - sort of like “you’re making up the claim I did that in twenty years ago because you’re looking for a payday now that I just won the lottery/became president/was nominated to the supreme court”. Proof that it’s not a recent fabrication would be the testimony of someone that they were told this about the same time as the incident.
Or would it be necessary for the defense to “open the door” by suggesting it was a recent fabrication?
Yes - it may not quite cross the legal line into subborning perjury, but it does seem to trigger a slime alert to the point where the lawyer should face professional consequences, particularly when done on behalf of the person paying the bills rather than the client’s best interest.
Everything is a state thing unless it’s superceded by precedent of a higher court. As far as I know there is no federal caselaw disallowing the Fresh Complaint Doctrine. Then it’s up to the state and state court caselaw. You would have to ask someone from each state to see how and why it is not allowed there. In NJ there are several cases that uphold it.
As for hearsay it’s because the only fact that is being presented is “He told me.” The only cross examination is as to whether the statement was made not the veracity. An extremely prejudicial statement could be heard by the jury without the defense being able to counter it with cross examination. That’s my simplistic understanding of it anyway.
That’s pretty much it. Often allegations are not made at the time of the assault. If a 3rd party heard of the complaint soon after the assault it adds credibility. It can also backfire if there are significant differences in the testimony.
In my state it’s an exemption to hearsay. You don’t need the defense to do anything.
I see, but what I meant was, if such an assault case were being tried in federal court, would they allow the Fresh Complaint, or do only states permit it? Seems something ought to be uniformly constitutional or un-constitutional at both state/fed levels.
Thinking back on this, they were showing some hearings and not the trial itself, so IIRC there may have been different standards for hearsay. Again, not a lawyer and don’t play one on the Dope.
It happens all the time. Every state has to follow caselaw made at the highest level court in its food chain. States have to abide by rulings of their state Supreme Court. Multiple states have to abide by rulings of their federal appeals court district. Not everything makes it to SCOTUS. If there hasn’t been a SCOTUS ruling on a subject the highest court ruling stands.
States can interpret the constitution more strictly than the Supreme Court. They can’t interpret it less strictly. There may be an old Supreme Court precedent allowing the fresh complaint doctrine. States can still rule that it’s not allowed. It can’t be the other way. Off the top of my head I’ll give you some 4th amendment examples. My state often rules more strictly than the Supreme Court. There was an emerging technology called a motor vehicle. Eventually a case got to the supreme court and they ruled there is an exemption to the search warrant requirement due to the mobility of a motor vehicle. No warrant is needed only probable cause. New Jersey caselaw limits that to the area that’s in the span of control of the suspect. If you have probable cause the supreme court allows a search of the entire vehicle. In New Jersey if we want to get into the trunk, we need a search warrant. Another example was with marijuana. Supreme court precedent states that the smell of fresh marijuana is probable cause and can lead to a search without a warrant. We had a case that overturned that and required a search warrant if there was a smell of marijuana. We had to seize the vehicle and apply for a warrant . About a year later, after many judges were complaining about getting called in the middle of the night for warrants, just coincidentally there was a new ruling at the state Supreme Court level stating that a warrantless search was now allowed again. Then we legalized it, so it doesn’t matter anymore.
Sexual assault cases are rarely heard in federal court. It’s a matter of jurisdiction. If it happens on federal property it will be a federal case. It happens but not nearly as often as they are heard at the state level.
Someone else can go into detail about pretrial hearings. It’s not something I was much involved in.
If it was a probable cause hearing, I can see it. Hearsay is certainly allowed in grand jury. Often I was the only one testifying to the grand jury for a case. I had to testify as to what everyone told me. The burden of proof to a grand jury for an indictment is probable cause. Statements made to the police are part of probable cause. If it’s a probable cause hearing to determine if the grand jury was right to indict, I could see the officers testimony being questioned. Some of what the officer says would still not be allowed in front of a jury.
It’s not constitutional. It comes from English common law. The general idea is that some types of statement are inherently unreliable and shouldn’t be accepted as evidence unless it is subject to cross examination.