Abstract
Representatives of the police department and the local prosecutor’s office have related to you the following story: A nineteen year old, on probation for burglary, was picked up by the police for questioning when his uncle reported his suspicion that the boy was wearing stolen clothes. Actually, he was wearing the clothes of Mr. Lawson, a law student, which the latter had reported to the police as stolen. The probationer told the police that some time earlier Mr. Lawson had engaged him in conversation at the Greyhound Bus Terminal and subsequently invited him to the student’s apartment for a few drinks. At the apartment Mr. Lawson eventually performed fellatio (oral-genital relations) on the probationer, with consent, and paid him a sum of money. [You were] informed that upon being confronted by the police with this story, Mr. Lawson said, “I have a problem, I can control it as long as I don’t drink.” Of course, both the probationer’s allegations and the implied admission of Mr. Lawson were presented to you in the form of double or triple hearsay; whatever doubts may subsequently be raised about the relevance of the allegations or the propriety of disclosure are thus significantly aggravated by the dubious quality of the evidence.