In the case of Randall D. White v. Illinois, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that testimonial statements made by a child victim to doctors and police officers were admissible as evidence even if the child did not testify at trial due to being deemed incompetent. The court held that these out-of-court statements fell under exceptions to hearsay rules because they were made for medical treatment purposes or during an ongoing emergency investigation, thus satisfying requirements for reliability and necessity. This decision was significant as it clarified how hearsay exceptions could be applied in cases involving child abuse victims who may not be able to testify effectively in court.

In the dissenting opinion for Randall D. White v. Illinois, Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Scalia and Kennedy, argued that the majority's decision to allow hearsay evidence in child sexual abuse cases was a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The dissenters contended that this clause guarantees defendants' rights to cross-examine witnesses against them and should not be bypassed simply because it is difficult or uncomfortable for a child witness to testify in court. They believed that allowing such exceptions would undermine one of the fundamental principles of our justice system - ensuring fair trials through adversarial testing - and could lead to wrongful convictions based on unchallenged testimony.