High Court Shields Child Abuse Victims : Judiciary: Justices rule that officials, family may testify in place of children. They also give local government flexibility in prison overcrowding cases.

The Supreme Court gave prosecutors an important edge in child abuse cases Wednesday, ruling that doctors, police officers or family members who talk to an abused child may testify in the child’s place during a trial.

In a second ruling favoring the government, the high court Wednesday made it easier for cities and states to escape the demands of strict court orders aimed at easing prison overcrowding.

And in a third decision, the court cleared the way for deportation to Britain of Joseph Doherty, an Irish Republican Army member convicted of murder and sentenced to life in a British prison.

In the child abuse issue, the court threw out a requirement that young victims must testify in court if they are able to do so.

Instead, the justices ruled unanimously that doctors and nurses who examine an abused child or witnesses who hear “spontaneous” accounts by children can speak for them in court.

Criminal defense lawyers said that they fear the ruling could permit adults to testify convincingly about a child’s confused recollections. But other lawyers said that the decision will prevent some abused children from suffering the second trauma of having to be questioned on the witness stand.

In California, Deputy Atty. Gen. Janet G. Bangle questioned whether the ruling will have a broad impact. “Normally the child is the best witness. It is unusual for the child not to be called,” she said. Unlike most other states, California does not generally allow hearsay testimony by doctors and nurses.

In the prison-overcrowding case, the justices said in a 6-2 vote that “changed circumstances,” including tight budgets, can be grounds for modifying earlier court orders.

The ruling, in a long-running lawsuit over jail conditions in Boston, is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recent efforts to limit the power of federal judges and return more authority to city and state officials.

Repeatedly, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has stressed that prisons should be run by prison managers, not federal judges.

Civil rights attorneys, however, fault the high court for ignoring the violations of constitutional rights that have led to judicial intervention in the first place.

In 1979, Boston officials had agreed, as a condition of settling a lawsuit, to build a new jail with separate cells for persons who are held until their trials.

But three years ago, the sheriff of Suffolk County, which includes Boston, asked to have the court order modified so that two inmates could be placed in each cell of the new jail, citing an “unforeseen increase” in the jail population.

The federal judge who oversaw the consent order, backed by the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, said that the local government must abide by its deal.

The Supreme Court disagreed. In a 6-2 decision, the justices said the unexpected overcrowding and tight city budgets are good reasons to modify such a court order.

Judges “should exercise flexibility,” Justice Byron R. White advised. They “should surely keep the public interest in mind,” he added, which may require that two inmates be put into each cell.

The ruling in the case (Rufo vs. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 90-954) may permit city and state officials around the nation to relax court orders that govern conditions in prisons, hospitals or schools.

The child abuse case marked the fourth time in four years that the justices had considered the sensitive issues raised by such prosecutions. During the 1980s, courts faced a sharp increase in complaints of child sexual abuse.

Because young children are often unable to testify on their own behalf, prosecutors and lawmakers have sought to modify some procedures so that these alleged crimes can be tried in court.

Two years ago, the justices ruled in Maryland vs. Craig that child abuse victims could testify via closed circuit television. But defense lawyers complained that the court was watering down the traditional right to confront accusers in court. The Sixth Amendment says that “the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

In the case decided Wednesday, an Illinois man, Randall D. White, was convicted of entering his girlfriend’s home in the middle of the night and molesting her 4-year-old daughter. The child’s scream awakened a baby-sitter and the girl told the sitter, her mother, a policeman, doctor and nurse that “Randy” had touched her “private parts.”

All five adults testified during White’s trial. Their statements, though considered “hearsay,” were allowed under state laws that permit witnesses to recount “spontaneous declarations” or statements to medical personnel. The child did not testify. A jury convicted White and he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, White claimed that his rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated because the 4-year-old was “available” to testify, but prosecutors did not call her as a witness.

The chief justice, speaking for a unanimous court, disagreed. “We have been careful not to equate the confrontation clause’s prohibitions with the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay statements,” Rehnquist said in the case (White vs. Illinois, 90-6113). It “would be the height of wrongheadedness,” he added, to disallow “trustworthy” statements from adults simply because the child did not testify.

In the Doherty case, the justices ruled 5 to 3 that the U.S. attorney general has the authority to deport him as an illegal alien without reopening hearings on his request for political asylum as ordered by lower courts.

Doherty, 36, was found guilty in 1981 by a British court in Belfast of killing a British officer during an ambush of a British Army convoy in Northern Ireland. He escaped to New York but was eventually arrested by FBI agents in 1983.

Doherty, who has never been convicted of a crime in the United States, has been held in prison since that time while his lawyers fought for his freedom.