Is Cross-Examination of Investigators' Methods of Victim Questioning Allowed ?

In People v. Hudy (73 NY2d 40 [1988]), the Court of Appeals held that it was error, in the course of trial, to have foreclosed defense cross-examination of the investigators' methods of questioning the victims. (Id., at 57-58.) However, Hudy cannot be read to require a pretrial hearing on this issue. As another Trial Judge who has considered this issue noted, "in the course of reversing the defendant's convictions and remanding the matter for a new trial, the Court of Appeals in Hudy neither held nor suggested that the new trial directed to be had therein should be preceded by a pretrial hearing of the type suggested by the defendant, or that the presence of possible suggestiveness and/or the use of disfavored interview regimes would raise a threshold (legal) issue regarding the admissibility of the children's in-court testimony, as opposed to presenting a question of fact for the jury to consider during the course of its deliberations." (People v. Alvarez, 159 Misc 2d 963, 964 [Sup Ct, Richmond County 1993] [rejecting defendant's request for pretrial taint hearing in child sex abuse case]).