801 F. Supp. 2d 1200
D.N.M.2011Background
- Chaco allegedly sexually abused Jane Doe between 2008 and 2010; Doe underwent a sexual assault examination by Dr. Renee Ornelas on November 4, 2010; Doe provided statements to Dr. Ornelas about the abuse during the exam; Dr. Ornelas found no physical evidence of abuse; the United States sought to admit Doe's statements under Rule 803(4) and to limit impeachment related to Velarde; the court granted in part and denied in part, admitting the statements and limiting Dr. Ornelas' testimony and cross-examination about Velarde.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Doe's statements to the medical examiner under Rule 803(4) | Doe statements are admissible as medical-diagnosis or treatment | Statements are unreliable or improper expert vouching | Admissible under Rule 803(4) |
| Confrontation Clause impact given Doe will testify | Doe testifies, satisfying Crawford; non-testimonial nature. | Potential testimonial nature could violate Crawford if not cross-examined | No Confrontation Clause violation; trial testimony by Doe allows cross-examination |
| Impeachment related to Velarde and whether Dr. Ornelas can be probed about Velarde | Velarde is distinct; no need to rely on Velarde for Impeachment | Velarde holding should be open to impeachment strategy | Velarde-related impeachment barred; cannot mention Velarde |
| Whether Dr. Ornelas may opine that Doe was sexually abused | Medical opinion may aid diagnosis | Unreliable vouching; risks improper opinion | Dr. Ornelas cannot opine on whether Doe was sexually abused |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Joe, 8 F.3d 1488 (10th Cir.1993) (Rule 803(4) reliability from treatment context; abuse discussions permissible when related to diagnosis/treatment)
- White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992) (Self-interest doctrine enhances reliability of medical-treatment statements)
- United States v. Tome, 61 F.3d 1449 (10th Cir.1995) (Admissibility of multiple child-victim statements to medical providers under 803(4))
- United States v. Velarde, 214 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir.2000) (Impeachment and reliability considerations for Ornelas' testimony; Velarde limits discussed)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements)
- United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir.2005) (Test for testimonial statements; framework discussed)
- United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765 (10th Cir.2010) (Refined definition/two-test approach for testimonial statements)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert-based reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Guidance on admissibility of expert testimony)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (Clarifies testimonial vs. non-testimonial distinction post-Crawford)
- United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir.2007) (Reasonable foreseeability standard for testimonial statements)