Curious how the right to face your accuser is being applied here

[a.bentonab]

Children to testify by closed-circuit TV in molest trial » Evansville Courier & Press

It is an article about how an accused child sexual/physical abuser in Evansville. The victims will testify against her via closed circuit TV. It says that IN law has ruled they can testify as long as each party can see each other and the accused can hear the victim's testimony.

By no means am I defending this womans actions, her acused crimes are deplorable, but isn't the 6th amendment pretty clear on this?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I wouldn't call seeing someone on TV unable to hear them a "confrontation." The article says it would put undue stress on the children and have a chance for emotional harm if their attacker would be in the same room while they testified.

I am curious if any law types could present some reasoning as to how this is allowed under the constitution and why her lawyer isn't pulling that card.

 

[Double T]

I have a family member wrongly accused of sexual molestation, and the fact that a kid can make up a lie about a baby sitter and NOT have to look into their eyes is in fact one of the flaws of the system...

It should not be allowed but has for children because some mental health professionals believe that not confronting an attacker will help the child cope and not suffer PTSD type relapses...

 

[Stschil]

I think you may be reading a too literal meaning into the word "Confront"

Though I don't really see a benefit to TV testimony. If I were a juror in a trial such as this, I think I would want them in the court room so I could observe both the accused and the victim. Sometimes actions speak volumes when words deceive.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

The reason why they allow testimony like this is because some people have been so emotionally traumatized that they break down when they are near their attacker. While the system is nowhere near perfect, it provides a means to allow a victim to "confront" their attacker in a way they feel partially safe.

 

[eldirector]

The reason why they allow testimony like this is because some people have been so emotionally traumatized that they break down when they are near their attacker. While the system is nowhere near perfect, it provides a means to allow a victim to "confront" their attacker in a way they feel partially safe.

Alleged victim and Alleged attacker.

That's the fine line here. Right now, the pendulum has swung WAY to one side in cases involving children. We assume guilt, and strongly favor the accuser. Justice is not as blind as we claim, and there is no real "due process" in these cases.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

Alleged victim and Alleged attacker.

That's the fine line here. Right now, the pendulum has swung WAY to one side in cases involving children. We assume guilt, and strongly favor the accuser. Justice is not as blind as we claim, and there is no real "due process" in these cases.

If someone allegedly assumes guilt and it is allegedly strongly in favor of the accuser then then i would say that it's the problem of The People, not the system. If Justice is allegedly not as blind as you claim and there is allegedly no real "due process" in these cases, then i would say that the system perfectly represents The People.

 

[96firephoenix]

to be confronted with the witnesses against him

not

to have a confrontation with the witnesses against him

I think that anyone who is making an accusation in open court should have to look the person in the face to do it, but thats just me. I get over it much faster if I look the person straight in the face.

 

[eldirector]

If someone allegedly assumes guilt and it is allegedly strongly in favor of the accuser then then i would say that it's the problem of The People, not the system. If Justice is allegedly not as blind as you claim and there is allegedly no real "due process" in these cases, then i would say that the system perfectly represents The People.

And that is exactly how the Witch Trials got started.

 

[Shelly1582]

The accused is able to "confront" their accuser through legal questioning. What this type of testimony prevents is intimidation during testimony. We have the right to confront in the form of cross examination, not to use intimidation tactics to scare the most vulnerable of our society into backing down. Just my take on the situation.
edited to add: The little girls are 4 and 6. The accused is stated to have admitted to physically abusing the kids. When she admitted to abuse of any kind, she lost the right to be labeled as an "alleged" abuser. She is their abuser. Clear and simple.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

not


I think that anyone who is making an accusation in open court should have to look the person in the face to do it, but thats just me. I get over it much faster if I look the person straight in the face.

So you have been raped and had to see that person again in court? Little different situation don't ya think?

I have no issue with making someone go to court if they want to testify but some are making it out to be no big deal. That is something you just don't get over, especially in such a short time that you are still going through the trial.

 

[RockofStrength]

If you are going to testify you should face the person you testify against, plain and simple. This is not some procedural thing that can be included or removed on a whim, this is a very important part of a trial's proceedings.

 

[Shelly1582]

You should totally get away with your crime if you terrify your 4 year old victim so much that they cannot look at you without having a panic attack. That is absolutely your right!

I'm new here but I think my above statement should be in purple?

 

[badwolf.usmc]

And that is exactly how the Witch Trials got started.

Much like the Scopes Monkey trial as well.

 

[RockofStrength]

You should totally get away with your crime if you terrify your 4 year old victim so much that they cannot look at you without having a panic attack. That is absolutely your right!

I'm new here but I think my above statement should be in purple?

And so...what? If I claim that I am so emotionally traumatized that I cannot testify in front of the person I accuse I can just not do so? That provision was included for a very important reason, and cannot be tossed aside for something so nebulous. Cases involving children and molestation are already heavily stacked against the accused from the get go. Are they now to be denied even the basic decency of facing the person accusing them?

 

[Double T]

If someone allegedly assumes guilt and it is allegedly strongly in favor of the accuser then then i would say that it's the problem of The People, not the system. If Justice is allegedly not as blind as you claim and there is allegedly no real "due process" in these cases, then i would say that the system perfectly represents The People.

In Huntington, I have yet to see one person acquitted of charges. They always side with the kids, and they would NOT allow my family member to bring up past instances of the kid trying to get other people to touch her behind and being all clingy and overly touchy as a kid.

They will NOT allow any testimony against the character of the child to challenge the credibility of the testimony.

Thank God that my family member was a minor when accused, and is not required to register as a sex offender or even have a felony. I have spoken with him several times about his mock "trial" and all the injustice.

The defense wasn't allowed to cross examine or bring up the past sexual inappropriate behavior because the kid was "traumatized" enough...pretty sh**y IMO.

I think everyone should be required to sit in court to testify and look their "attacker" in the eye. IMHO, part of coping is confronting the person, but hell, what do I know...

 

[Shelly1582]

I actually have a relative who attempted to use similar history in his defense. He was also convicted. Whether a small child behaves in a provocative manner is of no significance. Sexually assaulting a child is on of the crimes that would be considered a crime, by most, even not an actual law.

The specific case this thread mentions is of 4 and 6 year old little girls whose stories of sexual abuse coincide with the physical evidence in the case. The suspect has confessed to physical abuse. For the sake of being a new member not looking to come in ticking people off, I will say that the children's video testimony should not be needed. The case could be proven with physical evidence and the defendants own scumminess, but I certainly would stand behind the girls testimony during the sentencing phase. The jury needs to see and hear from the victims who will forever be different people after the experience.

 

[Double T]

I actually have a relative who attempted to use similar history in his defense. He was also convicted. Whether a small child behaves in a provocative manner is of no significance. Sexually assaulting a child is on of the crimes that would be considered a crime, by most, even not an actual law.

There was no evidence, and he was accused of touching her behind and found guilty. She put SEVERAL people's hand on her *** and would try to get my wife to do it as a child as well. That's why I found it hard to believe the cross exam wasn't allowed.

The accusations were based around when he was like 13-15 years old, he was 19 when it started, and it ended when he turned 21 and they took him off probation.

He received several death threats, and I myself have had to step in a couple times to defend him and tell people to get the facts and back the hell off.

The little girl had a friend in school who told of a true molestation encounter (her best friend) and she made up a story about him. Sad to say that in our current legal ideology that kids can cry wolf and ruin someone's life.

 

[Shelly1582]

There was no evidence, and he was accused of touching her behind and found guilty. She put SEVERAL people's hand on her *** and would try to get my wife to do it as a child as well. That's why I found it hard to believe the cross exam wasn't allowed.

The accusations were based around when he was like 13-15 years old, he was 19 when it started, and it ended when he turned 21 and they took him off probation.

He received several death threats, and I myself have had to step in a couple times to defend him and tell people to get the facts and back the hell off.

The little girl had a friend in school who told of a true molestation encounter (her best friend) and she made up a story about him. Sad to say that in our current legal ideology that kids can cry wolf and ruin someone's life.

It sounds like your relatives case was completely different than the one linked in this thread, and my relatives for that matter. The little girl in your scenario may have had something else going on to behave in that manner. I hope she got help. I just think that people take the instances where children were brain washed into making false accusations, or had been previously scarred and projected it onto an innocent as being the norm. These things do happen, but there are also animals out there that we must protect our children from at all costs. We can't paint everyone innocent, just as we can't paint everyone guilty.

I have a strong feeling that the woman charged in the referenced case will be found guilty and I hope she gets more than probation.

 

[Double T]

It sounds like your relatives case was completely different than the one linked in this thread, and my relatives for that matter. The little girl in your scenario may have had something else going on to behave in that manner. I hope she got help. I just think that people take the instances where children were brain washed into making false accusations, or had been previously scarred and projected it onto an innocent as being the norm. These things do happen, but there are also animals out there that we must protect our children from at all costs. We can't paint everyone innocent, just as we can't paint everyone guilty.

I have a strong feeling that the woman charged in the referenced case will be found guilty and I hope she gets more than probation.

Too true. It's just that people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, except that in a case of sexual assault on a minor, that seems to not be the norm.

I'm just thankful that he wasn't charged as a felony as there was no evidence and only verbal testimony, and also, I told him to go to a gun shop and request a check to see if he can own a firearm. He was told that it would not affect his adult record, but I told him it may.

Hopefully he can in the future own firearms, if not, I may have to let him go with me to a range or something because he truly is one of the most trustworthy people I know.

 

[Shelly1582]

And so...what? If I claim that I am so emotionally traumatized that I cannot testify in front of the person I accuse I can just not do so? That provision was included for a very important reason, and cannot be tossed aside for something so nebulous. Cases involving children and molestation are already heavily stacked against the accused from the get go. Are they now to be denied even the basic decency of facing the person accusing them?

If you are a 4 year old little girl, then yup.