United States v. Allen

127 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The case was in federal court because both D and the victim are Indians and because the incident took place within the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation in New Mexico. The victim, a twelve-year-old female, graduated from the fifth grade. After dinner, the victim delivered some aspirin to her grandmother, who lived next door. As she was returning, she met D, then fifteen, a cousin of hers who lived in the house on the opposite side of the grandmother's. D grabbed the victim by the wrist and forced her away from the houses to a nearby abandoned car. After a brief struggle, D raped the victim. Prior to trial, D filed a motion challenging the victim's competence to testify and requesting a competency examination. D claimed the victim suffered 'mild retardation and learning disabilities.' A report by a pediatrician, dated October 9, 1993, mentioned the victim suffers from 'developmental delay and mild mental retardation' but stated she could not conclude those problems resulted from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. The district court judge did not rule on the motion before the trial but raised it immediately before the start of the prosecution's case. The court found no compelling reason to hold a competency examination. When the victim was called to testify, the court asked her a series of questions: 'Do you understand what it is, to tell the truth?' and 'Do you know the difference between the truth and a lie?' The victim did not respond to the judge's questioning. The prosecutor began with simple questions ('What is your last name?', 'How old are you?', and 'Where do you live?'), which the victim answered. After about thirty questions along these lines, almost all of which the victim was able to answer correctly, the prosecutor shifted to questions relating to the difference between the truth and lies. The prosecutor asked the victim if she understood she had promised to tell the truth in court, to which the victim responded affirmatively. After this series of questions, which established the victim knew the difference between a truth and a lie, knew she was, to tell the truth in court, and knew she would be punished if she told a lie. The court allowed her to testify. D objected numerous times. During testimony, the victim had difficulty answering questions, gave wrong answers to some of counsel's questions, and she gave nonsensical answers to others. She also paused for long periods of time before answering some questions. D was convicted and appealed.