The Utah Court of Appeals convened on December 11, 2024, to discuss the case of State v. Wardle, focusing on the credibility of witness disclosures and the implications of memory recall in legal contexts.

During the proceedings, significant attention was given to the testimony of a key witness, referred to as HD, who had initially disclosed an incident to police on April 29, 2020. The witness stated that she had "blocked this incident out of her mind" until recent medical issues prompted her to remember it. Legal representatives emphasized that the nature of her memory recall raises questions about its reliability. They argued that human experience suggests that such a delayed recollection, particularly after a long period, is not typical of ordinary memory problems.

Furthermore, the court examined a second disclosure made by HD less than three months later, where she provided altered details about the same incident. Initially, she described wearing a dress and being restrained while her underwear was removed. However, in her subsequent account, she claimed to have been wearing a blue shirt and bell-bottom jeans, indicating a significant shift in her recollection of the event.

Judge Levy noted the differences in the witness's accounts and referenced the civil case Franklin versus Stevenson, highlighting how depositions in civil contexts could help clarify such discrepancies. This comparison underscored the complexities involved in assessing witness credibility and the challenges of memory reliability in legal proceedings.

The discussions in this meeting reflect broader implications for how memory and testimony are evaluated in court, particularly in cases involving long-ago incidents. The court's deliberations will likely influence future cases where witness memory plays a critical role in determining outcomes.