White v. Coplan

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005 · Evidence

399 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseImpeachment by prior false accusationsHabeas corpusAEDPASixth Amendmentcross-examinationprior false accusations

Facts

White was convicted of sexual assaults against two girls, and the prosecution's case depended almost entirely on the girls' testimony because the forensic evidence was negative and other witnesses did not see the assaults. White sought to cross-examine the girls about prior sexual-assault accusations they had made against other men, arguing those prior accusations were false and similar to the accusations against him. The New Hampshire Supreme Court later found those prior accusations false to a reasonable probability, but state law required demonstrable falsity, equated with clear and convincing evidence, before such impeachment would be allowed. The trial court therefore barred all inquiry into the prior accusations.

Issue

Whether, under AEDPA and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, the state court unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law by barring White from cross-examining the complainants about prior similar sexual-assault accusations that the state supreme court found false to a reasonable probability.

Rule

Cross-examination is an essential constitutional right, though subject to reasonable limits for concerns such as prejudice, confusion, or delay. Restrictions on a criminal defendant's ability to confront adverse witnesses and present evidence may not be arbitrary or disproportionate to their purposes; the inquiry depends on the circumstances, including the importance of the evidence to the defense, the scope of the ban, and the strength of the state's interests. Even a generally valid evidentiary rule may be unconstitutional as applied where it bars highly probative cross-examination into prior similar accusations shown false to a reasonable probability, especially when the evidence supports an inference of motive to lie and the defendant has little other means of defense.

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 criminal trial in Portland, Maine, Noah Mercer is charged with molesting his girlfriend's two nieces. There is no physical evidence, no eyewitness saw any touching, and the prosecutor tells the jury the case rises or falls on whether the girls are truthful. Mercer seeks to cross-examine one niece about two earlier accusations she made against other adult men that the trial judge finds false to a reasonable probability, but the judge bars all questioning because state law permits such impeachment only if falsity is proved by clear and convincing evidence.

If Mercer later argues that the exclusion violated the Sixth Amendment, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority held that even a generally valid evidentiary rule may be unconstitutional as applied when it arbitrarily or disproportionately bars highly probative cross-examination. The key factors are the importance of the evidence to the defense, the total scope of the ban, and the state's interests. Where the case turns on credibility, the defendant has little other defense, and the prior similar accusations were found false to a reasonable probability, a complete bar on cross-examination can violate the Confrontation Clause.