Naraja also denied the motion to compel advance discovery of witness statement that was filed by Santos’ counsel, Assistant Public Defender Douglas Hartig.
Santos is charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, which the defendant denies.
Assistant Attorney General Eileen Wisor Escudero is prosecuting the case.
Naraja said Santos, through his counsel, “can point to no particular facts or evidence to refute doctors’ findings of sexual abuse.”
In addition, Naraja said Santos offered no reason to question the credibility or qualifications of the doctors who examined the victim.
Naraja ruled: “Therefore, the defendant failed to prove the existence of a reasonable probability that a forensic expert would find error in the doctors’ medical reports, or otherwise be of any assistance to the defense.”
Also, Santos “did not state a particularized need for an expert,” Naraja noted.
During oral arguments, Naraja said, Hartig “merely asserted that an expert is needed to evaluate the doctors’ medical findings of vaginal and anal penetration committed against the alleged victim. Even if such findings are of a highly technical nature, defendant is not entitled per se to the appointment of an expert…. The defendant did not prove that the denial of expert assistance would result in a fundamentally unfair trial.”
“Even assuming that an expert in child witness suggestibility would be beneficial, due process does not entitle the defendant to such an expert at the government’s expense…. [Santos] must meet his burden in satisfying the two prongs of the [Commonwealth v. Perez, 2006] test [case], which defendant failed to do.”
In denying defense’s motion to compel advance discovery of witness statement, Naraja ruled that “[E]arly disclosure, absent a showing of unusual circumstances, would contravene the clear language of Rule 26.2.”
On May 16, 2011, the victim told her mother that Santos sexually abused her several times.
On same day, Commonwealth Health Center’s doctor examined the victim using sexual assault evidence collection kit, and “confirmed the victim was sexually abused.”
The following day, another doctor similarly examined the victim and “also found evidence of sexual abuse.”
