672 F.3d 45
1st Cir.2012Background
- Abram was convicted by a New Hampshire jury of 21 counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault, 4 counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and 1 count of indecent exposure and lewdness.
- He sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights by restricting cross-examination about accusations Abram also abused his younger siblings, K.A. and M.T.
- The state sought to exclude questioning about the 1999 uncharged allegations against K.A. and M.T. to impeach A.A. and C.A., based on New Hampshire’s “demonstrably false” standard.
- The trial court granted the government’s motion, ruling the uncharged allegations were not demonstrably false and barred related cross-examination.
- The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the exclusion as a proper application of state law, finding no constitutional error under the standards in White v. Coplan.
- The district court denied Abram’s § 2254 petition; the First Circuit affirmed, holding the NH Supreme Court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of cross-examination about uncharged allegations violated the Confrontation Clause | Abram | Abram | No, reasonable under Confrontation Clause |
| Whether NH's 'demonstrably false' standard, applied to limit cross-examination, was an unreasonable application of federal law | Abram | Abram | No, not unreasonable under AEDPA |
| Whether the exclusion deprived Abram of a meaningful defense or caused a trial within a trial | Abram | State | No, not a reversible deprivation under applicable law |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (limits on cross-examination; bias inquiry)
- White v. Coplan, 399 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2005) (extreme cases balancing test for prior false allegations)
- State v. Gordon, 146 N.H. 258 (2001) (demonstrably false standard for cross-exam)
- State v. Miller, 155 N.H. 246 (2007) (overruled Gordon re: demonstration requirement)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (motive/bias as a credibility attack; exceptions to general rules)
- Searcy v. Jaimet, 332 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 2003) (credibility and cross-examination rights; context of evidence)