United States v. Ferguson: Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Admissibility of Rapport-Building Segments in Child Forensic Interviews

1. Introduction

United States v. Donald Gene Ferguson, II (4th Cir., 2025) concerns the evidentiary boundaries surrounding video-recorded child forensic interviews. Ferguson, convicted of abusive sexual contact with his eleven-year-old adopted daughter (“Jane Doe”), challenged the admission of the first 9½ minutes of Doe’s 45-minute interview with a Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agent. Those initial minutes—commonly referred to as the “rapport-building” stage—contain small-talk, rule-setting, and a narrative-practice exercise wholly unrelated to the charged abuse. Ferguson contended that this portion was (1) irrelevant, (2) inadmissible hearsay, and (3) unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The Fourth Circuit, in a published opinion by Judge Richardson joined by Chief Judge Diaz and Judge Heytens, affirmed the conviction and, in doing so, announced a clear analytical framework for admitting such interview segments.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court held that the challenged 9½-minute segment was relevant because it showed the interview’s compliance with the National Children’s Advocacy Center (NCAC) protocol, thereby enhancing the reliability of Doe’s later substantive statements.
• The segment did not constitute hearsay because the government offered the child’s answers and the interviewer’s statements for a non-truth purpose—to illustrate the procedural integrity of the interview, not to prove the literal truth of cereal preferences or dog names.
• Even if relevant, the evidence was not excludable under Rule 403; its probative value in bolstering credibility was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or cumulative effects.
• The panel emphasized the district court’s “wide discretion” in Rule 403 balancing and evidence characterization, and it reiterated the appellate principle that a correct result will be affirmed even if the trial court’s express reasoning is sparse or absent.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Ebert, 61 F.4th 394 (4th Cir. 2023) – re-affirmed the abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings. Guided the panel’s deference to the trial judge.
• United States v. Elsheikh, 103 F.4th 1006 (4th Cir. 2024) and United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2005) – underscored the stringent “substantially outweighed” threshold for Rule 403 exclusion.
• United States v. Lewis, 10 F.3d 1086 (4th Cir. 1993) – supplied the classic definition of hearsay adopted in the opinion.
• United States v. Gonzales-Flores, 701 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2012) – affirmed that the district court must determine the purpose for which evidence is offered.
• Scholarly authorities (Sklansky & Roth’s treatise; McCormick on Evidence) and historical references (e.g., Crawford v. Washington) were used to contextualize hearsay doctrine.

By weaving these cases, the Court crystallized a two-step approach: (1) ascertain whether the statements fall within the traditional hearsay definition; (2) only if they do, consider exclusions/exceptions. This sequencing allowed the Court to dispose of the hearsay objection at step one, without venturing into Rule 801(d)(1)(B) prior-consistent-statement territory.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Relevance (Rules 401–402)
   The “small-talk” exchanges, although immaterial in content, were relevant because they demonstrated that Agent Gottardi meticulously followed the NCAC protocol—a process designed to elicit accurate, uncontaminated disclosures. Hence, they made it “more probable” that Doe’s subsequent abuse narrative was trustworthy.
2. Non-Hearsay Purpose (Rule 801(c))
   The Court identified a non-truth purpose: illustrating methodology rather than proving the literal truth of the answers. Because the evidence was introduced to show how the interview unfolded, not to establish the factual accuracy of innocuous details, the classic hearsay bar never triggered.
3. Rule 403 Balancing
   The trial court had already trimmed some portions of the video; the remaining snippet lacked inflammatory content and directly addressed the central credibility dispute. No “substantial” prejudice existed.
4. Appellate Deference & “Right-Result/Different-Reason” Doctrine
   Even though the district judge gave minimal explanation, the appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record (Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150). Thus, the correctness of the outcome—not the articulation—governed.

3.3 Potential Impact

This opinion provides a roadmap for trial courts nationwide in child-abuse prosecutions:

• Prosecutors can safely introduce entire forensic interviews—including rapport-building phases—if they can articulate a non-truth purpose (methodology, protocol compliance, witness demeanor).
• Defense attorneys must craft objections that directly negate relevance or demonstrate concrete prejudice; generic “hearsay” or “unfair prejudice” labels will seldom suffice.
• Child advocacy centers and forensic interviewers may rely on the NCAC protocol with greater confidence that faithful adherence enhances admissibility, not only of substantive disclosures but of contextual preliminaries.
• Appellate courts are reminded to employ the “right-result/different-reason” doctrine, which curbs reversals based on technical omissions in a trial judge’s oral rulings.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Hearsay: An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts. If the statement is offered for any other reason (to show effect on the listener, the mere fact it was said, procedure, etc.), it is not hearsay.
• Prior Consistent Statement (Rule 801(d)(1)(B)): A declarant’s earlier statement that matches their in-court testimony and counters an allegation of recent fabrication—classified as “not hearsay.”
• Rule 403 Balancing: A judge may exclude relevant evidence only if its probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers like unfair prejudice or confusion. This is a high bar favoring admissibility.
• NCAC Forensic Interview Protocol: A standardized, two-stage method used by trained interviewers to obtain reliable information from child victims—Stage 1 (rapport, rules, narrative practice); Stage 2 (substantive questioning, clarifications, decompression).

5. Conclusion

United States v. Ferguson cements an important evidentiary principle: Preliminary, rapport-building exchanges in a child forensic interview can be admitted as non-hearsay when offered to demonstrate protocol adherence and bolster the reliability of later substantive disclosures. The Fourth Circuit’s meticulous walkthrough of Rules 401, 801, and 403 provides trial courts with a structured checklist and re-emphasises the broad discretion accorded to judges in real-time evidentiary decisions. Going forward, litigators should be prepared to specify the precise purpose behind each interview segment’s admission or exclusion, while appellate counsel must recognize that silent, yet supportable, trial-court rulings will likely withstand scrutiny.