2) he put medicine in “there” (pointing to her vaginal area); 3) his penis “got little” afterwards; and 4) he pee-peed in her mouth. While Proctor’s comment was inappropriate, it should not distract us from the proper inquiry: Were Heather’s statements prior to Proctor’s first negative comment sufficiently shown to be reliable? I conclude that they were. Heather’s statements were in age-appropriate language; they were internally consistent; and they were spontaneous or in response to appropriate, non-leading questions. The majority’s statement that the Proctor’s repetitious questions would not have been permitted by a court is incorrect. Trial courts have great latitude in handling young or vulnerable witnesses. See United States v. Castro-Romero, 964 F.2d 942, 944 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Under the totality of the circumstances
holding district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing government to ask leading questions of eightyearold witness reluctant to testify regarding sexual abuse holding that the state could ask leading questions of its witness a codefendant who had entered a plea after witness initially refused to answer questions in violation of her plea agreement holding that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing a defendants surprise fact witness to testify because the plaintiff did not request a continuance holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiffs expert witness to testify when it also allowed defendants expert witness who disputed the methodology used by plaintiffs expert to testify holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify