Maryland v. Craig
The Child Victim as Witness
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Prosecutors in child sex abuse cases must often require the child victim testify at trial. Child abuse usually occurs in private and is rarely accompanied by long-lasting physical evidence. Consequently, faced with the prospect an offender cannot otherwise be prosecuted, most prosecutors will try the case using the child witness. However, given that the child may have to testify, child-advocacy groups, prosecutors, and state legislatures have agitated for measures aimed at avoiding the child having to give direct on-the-stand testimony. The most common of these are statutes authorizing the use of screens or closed-circuit television so the child will not have to see the accused or admitting the child's out-of-court statements in lieu of his or her presence at trial. However, because these measures relax the rules of evidence, they pose complex legal issues due to the scrutiny required by the Constitution before an accused can be convicted. Sandra Ann Craig operated a kindergarten in Maryland. Brooke Etze attended the school from August, 1984, through June 7, 1986, when she was between four and six. On June 21, 1986, Brooke's parents read a newspaper article recounting complaints of children having been abused at Ms. Craig's school. They contacted a sexual assault center and, Ms. Burke, a therapist, suspected Brooke had been abused. She contacted the police and social service departments.
. . .
elements of the confrontation right--oath, cross-examination, and observation of the witness' demeanor--enough to ensure the testimony was reliable and subject to adversarial testing. Consequently, the Court held the procedure, where necessary to further an important state interest, did not impinge upon the truth-seeking or symbolic purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
The critical inquiry in the case was whether the procedure was necessary to further an important state interest. The Court concluded a State's interest in the physical and psychological well-being of child abuse victims could outweigh a defendant's right to face-to-face confrontation. If the State adequately shows necessity, its interest in protecting child witnesses from the trauma of testifying is important enough to justify a procedure that permits the child to testify in the absence of face-to-face confrontation with the defendant. The requisite finding of necessity must be case-specific: The trial court must hear evidence and determine whether use of the procedure is necessary to protect the child witness.
Justices Scalia, Brennan, Marshall and Stevens wrote a dissenting opinion. They argued the Court applied an "interest-balancing" analysis w
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Confrontation Clause, Court Appeals, Responses Craig, Witness Prosecutors, Maryland Code, Supreme Court, Supreme Court's, Clause Court's, Ms Craig, Brooke Etze, confrontation clause, court appeals, closed-circuit television, child abuse, child sexual abuse, maryland craig, emotional distress, child sexual, face-to-face confrontation, sexual abuse, ms craig, serious emotional distress, brief amici curiae, eliciting truthful testimony, amici curiae behalf,
Approximate Word count = 1855
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
