BishopAccountability.org
	Frustrating Justice Worcester Telegram & Gazette April 4, 2011 http://www.telegram.com/article/20110404/NEWS/104040322/1020 Common sense suggests that when hearing testimony regarding allegations of sexual assault and abuse, juries ought to be able to hear from anyone that a victim confided in. But common sense does not always guide Massachusetts law. Last Tuesday, the state Appeals Court threw out a man's rape conviction because jurors were allowed to hear from a high school guidance counselor in whom the victim confided — some time after she told her mother about it. The court ruled that such testimony violates the state's "first complaint" doctrine, which states that only the first person to whom a victim tells his or her story can testify about the alleged abuse. Legally speaking, we presume the Appeals Court got it right. But the underlying doctrine makes no sense to us. The "first complaint" doctrine dates to September 2005, when the state's Supreme Judicial Court announced "a new common law rule of evidence." The rule is intended to prevent additional witnesses from piling on testimony and giving greater credibility to the victim than might be warranted. It gives judges discretion in cases where that first witness is "unavailable, incompetent, or too young to testify meaningfully." But that's small comfort to victims and their families. It is difficult and painful enough for a victim of sexual assault to report the crime to anyone. It is hardly surprising that the first person a victim turns to is usually a parent. The fact that he or she then summons the courage to tell a counselor, pastor or close friend shouldn't bar such people from testifying. Anyone with firsthand information on a case — hearing the story directly from the victim — should be heard in court. There is no reason to limit such testimony. Hearing witnesses, and weighing their words, lies at the heart of our legal system. It's what judges, lawyers and jurors are supposed to do. In the current case, the first complaint doctrine means that Steven Haggett, convicted in 2009 of rape of a child with force and indecent assault and battery, may soon make bail, even though he could face a second trial on the charges against him. Legalism has triumphed over common sense in this case. The SJC's ill-considered 2005 decision has made Massachusetts less safe than it should be, and frustrated justice.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.