## Facts

- Desmond Rouse and Jesse Rouse, along with their cousins Garfield Feather and Russell Hubbeling, lived in a home on the Yankton Sioux Indian Reservation during summer and fall 1993.
- Several young children (granddaughters of the homeowner) lived in or spent substantial time in the home.
- After a five-year-old child was placed with a foster parent due to neglect and malnutrition, she disclosed sexual abuse; the foster parent reported it to tribal social services.
- A therapist later reported that the child described sexual abuse against herself and other children in the home.
- Tribal social services removed multiple children from the home; several of the removed children disclosed sexual abuse by their uncles.
- A pediatrician examined the children, reported medical findings, and relayed the children’s statements about sexual abuse.
- At trial, the government relied primarily on the children’s testimony and related medical and psychological testimony; the defense attacked the investigation as suggestive and sought broader expert testimony and compelled psychological exams of the child witnesses.
- The district court permitted child testimony via one-way closed-circuit television and convicted all defendants on various counts after a jury trial.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing child witnesses to testify via one-way closed-circuit television violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and related reliability standards by excluding portions of defense expert testimony on child suggestibility and interview contamination.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion or violated defendants’ rights by denying motions to compel independent pretrial psychological examinations of child victims.
4. Whether admitting the children’s out-of-court statements to caregivers and professionals violated the hearsay rules or the Confrontation Clause.
5. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the convictions.
- The one-way closed-circuit television procedure was permissible under governing Confrontation Clause doctrine because the district court made case-specific necessity findings and preserved reliability safeguards.
- Exclusion of defense expert testimony was within the district court’s discretion where the proffer was unreliable, insufficiently tied to the facts, or amounted to credibility opinions reserved for the jury.
- Denial of compelled independent psychological examinations of the child victims was not an abuse of discretion given the intrusiveness and potential harm to children and the defense’s access to existing records and cross-examination.
- The challenged child statements were properly admitted under applicable hearsay exceptions, and confrontation concerns were satisfied because the children testified and were subject to cross-examination.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause permits one-way closed-circuit testimony by child witnesses when the trial court makes individualized findings that in-court testimony would cause serious harm and the procedure preserves core reliability features (oath, cross-examination, and demeanor assessment).
- Trial courts have broad discretion under Rule 702 to exclude expert testimony that lacks adequate reliability, lacks a sufficient fit with the case, or functions as an opinion on witness credibility.
- A defendant has no general right to compel an independent psychological examination of an alleged child victim; such orders are discretionary and may be denied to avoid unnecessary intrusion and trauma.
- Out-of-court statements by child victims may be admitted under recognized hearsay exceptions, and Confrontation Clause concerns are reduced where the declarant testifies and is cross-examined.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld the defendants’ child-sex-abuse convictions, ruling that the district court permissibly used one-way closed-circuit testimony for child witnesses, acted within its discretion in limiting defense expert evidence and denying compelled psychological examinations, properly admitted challenged child statements, and had sufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdicts.


United States v. Rouse, 111 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 1997)