Sat Jul 5, 2008
Free Subscription

  
   
Search the Journal
 

 
Advanced Search

Journal Links
 

Return to Front Page
Table of Contents
About Us
Editorial Board
Call to Papers
Contact Us
Policies

 
My Account
 
Username:
Password:


Register - FREE
Account Help
 

Due Process Not Violated by Closed-Circuit TV
Volume 2, Issue 3 -- Published: Saturday, Jan 31, 1998 -- Last Updated: Monday, Mar 11, 2002

Email to a colleague Comment on article Bookmark article Copyright & reprint info

Allowing two minor victims of sexual assault to testify against a defendant by closed-circuit television did not violate state law or the defendant's due process rights, nor did it violate his right to confront witnesses. A Texas appellate court affirmed the conviction of the defendant on sexual assault charges.
A thirteen year-old girl reported that the defendant had sexually assaulted her. The defendant, who claimed he could not read or write, confessed to the assault, and also admitted to engaging in sexual acts with four other minors, including two of his daughters and a six year-old niece.
Before trial, the prosecution moved to allow the thirteen year-old victim and the six year-old victim to testify by two-way closed circuit television for fear that the children would be intimidated by the defendant. The court granted this motion. The defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and he appealed, challenging inter alia the trial court's decision to allow the children to testify by closed-circuit television.
The defendant claimed that the decision to allow the closed-circuit testimony violated the state statute on the subject because the statute calls for closed-circuit testimony for children under 12 years of age who are unavailable. The court, however, rejected this claim, finding that the court could enforce the public policy of protecting children beyond what the legislature had done with the statute. The court noted that the thirteen year-old victim was 60% mentally retarded, had told her grandfather that the defendant had threatened her, and was terrified at the prospect of seeing the defendant again. The court also pointed to the fact that the six year-old was similarly scared of the defendant. As a result, the court found that forcing the victims to testify in court would risk causing them serious emotional harm. The fact that the six year-old was not the victim in this trial was not persuasive to the court, since testifying about the defendant in his presence would still be traumatic to her.

Feedback: What do you have to say?  |  Help: Get expert assistance for your own case

Return to the front page of The Forensic Echo now!

Terms of Use   |   Privacy Statement
All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 1996-2003 The Forensic Panel