United States v. Allen J.
127 F.3d 1292 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 601 and 18 U.S.C. § 3509, a child witness is presumed competent to testify, and a competency examination is only warranted if a party offers compelling proof of incompetency. Inconsistencies or difficulties in a child's testimony are matters of credibility for the trier of fact, not threshold questions of competency for the court.
Facts:
- The victim, a twelve-year-old female, and her cousin, Allen J., then fifteen, were both members of the Navajo Nation and lived near each other on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation.
- On the evening of May 29, 1996, the victim was returning to her home after delivering aspirin to her grandmother, who lived next door.
- She encountered Allen J. outside.
- Allen J. grabbed the victim by the wrist and forcibly took her to a nearby abandoned car.
- After a brief struggle, Allen J. raped the victim.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen J. was charged with Aggravated Sexual Abuse under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, a federal trial court.
- Prior to trial, Allen J. filed a motion challenging the victim’s competence to testify and requesting a competency examination.
- The district court denied the motion, finding no compelling reason to hold an examination.
- Following a non-jury trial, the district court adjudged Allen J. a juvenile delinquent.
- Allen J. appealed the adjudication to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court abuse its discretion by finding a child victim competent to testify when the challenging party presents evidence of potential learning disabilities, but fails to provide compelling proof that the child cannot understand and answer simple questions?
Opinions:
Majority - Brorby, Circuit Judge
No. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the victim to testify. Federal Rule of Evidence 601 establishes a presumption that every person is competent to be a witness, and 18 U.S.C. § 3509 creates a specific statutory presumption that child victims are competent. To overcome this, a party must offer 'compelling proof of incompetency' to even warrant a hearing. Allen J.'s evidence, consisting of old reports about potential learning disabilities, did not meet this high standard. The older common law test from Wheeler v. United States, which required an inquiry into a child's understanding of truth and falsehood, has been superseded by the modern statutory framework. The current standard is simply whether the child can 'understanding and answering simple questions.' Any inconsistencies, pauses, or incorrect answers during the victim's testimony go to her credibility, which is for the trier of fact to weigh, not her fundamental competency to testify.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the modern legal framework's strong preference for admitting testimony from child witnesses in federal court. It clarifies that the competency standard under 18 U.S.C. § 3509 imposes a very high burden on the party challenging the witness, requiring 'compelling proof' just to obtain a competency examination. The court firmly distinguishes between competency—a threshold legal question for the judge with a low bar—and credibility—a factual determination for the jury. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for defendants to exclude child victim testimony based on developmental delays, communication difficulties, or inconsistencies, thereby strengthening protections for child victims in the justice system.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Allen J.