Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

The case of Ricky Lee Allshouse, Jr. v. Pennsylvania is currently before the United States Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari. You can read the filings from the case on the Scotus Blog, by clicking here. As a Massachusetts criminal attorney, this case represent another important case interpreting the Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation.

The Allshouse case involves an allegation of child abuse to an infant boy. The abuse was witnessed by the sister who told investigators that the defendant grabbed and yanked the infant. The State tried to admit the statement relying on a Pennsylvania statute allowing a prosecutor to introduce out-of-court statements in place of live testimony provided that the court finds that the statements was sufficiently reliable and the court declares the child unavailable.

At trial, the State introduced the statements through both the child abuse caseworker and a child psychologist. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the conviction holding that the statements were nontestimonial. The Court found that the statement to the caseworker was nontestimonial because the possibility that the defendant caused injury to the child made it necessary for an immediate investigation. Surprisingly, the court held that the statement to the child psychologist was cumulative and did not reach the Sixth Amendment issue with regard to that statement.

The petition before the United States Supreme Court argues that the statements are testimonial in the same way as in the Hammond case because the child witness is recounting past abuse. The criminal defense lawyer for the defendant argues that the incident under investigation was even further removed in time from the incident than in the Hammond case.

As a Massachusetts criminal attorney, I would expect the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case. If the Court rules for the defendant, the decision would further define the ongoing emergency exception announced in Bryant and Davis.