United States v. Wandahsega

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Evidence

EvidencehearsayRule 803(4)Rule 807Rule 106child witnessCCTV testimonyConfrontation Clause

Facts

Wandahsega's six-year-old son, H.D.W., told his grandmother and later Tonya Maycroft that his father had done bad things to him, and he later told Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy at the hospital that his father had touched his penis and put a finger in his rectum. Before trial, the government moved to have H.D.W. testify by two-way closed-circuit television, and a magistrate judge found that H.D.W. would be unable to testify in front of his father because of fear and likely trauma; Wandahsega did not object to that recommendation. At trial, the district court admitted H.D.W.'s statements to Nurse Smith and Dr. Judy under Rule 803(4), admitted his spontaneous statements to his grandmother and Maycroft under Rule 807, excluded a recorded forensic interview and a video of a later supervised visit, denied a mistrial after an agent mentioned a prior homosexual act, and denied a motion for acquittal.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in allowing the child witness to testify by closed-circuit television, admitting certain hearsay statements under Rules 803(4) and 807, excluding the supervised-visit video, denying a mistrial after an improper remark by an agent, and denying acquittal for insufficient evidence. The appeal also asked whether any of those rulings or the sentence required reversal.

Rule

A party who fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation waives appellate review when properly warned, absent a miscarriage of justice. Child testimony by closed-circuit television is permissible when the court makes the necessity findings required by Maryland v. Craig and 18 U.S.C. § 3509. Statements to medical personnel are admissible under Rule 803(4) when made for and reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis or treatment, and hearsay may be admitted under Rule 807 when it has equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness, concerns a material fact, is more probative than reasonably obtainable alternatives, and admission serves the rules and interests of justice. Rule 106 does not render otherwise inadmissible hearsay admissible, and sufficiency review asks whether any rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Grand Rapids, the government moved to let eight-year-old Mia testify by two-way closed-circuit television. A magistrate judge issued a report recommending the procedure, expressly warning that any objections had to be filed within 14 days and that failure to object would waive appeal; defense counsel filed nothing. After conviction, the defendant argues on appeal that the procedure violated the Confrontation Clause.

How should the appellate court most likely treat the defendant's challenge?

Explanation. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation after clear warning that failure to object waives review, appellate review is waived unless declining review would cause a miscarriage of justice. The mere fact that the claim is constitutional does not itself excuse the waiver. (Derived from United States v. Wandahsega (n.d.).)