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. As a result, the state indicted Ms. Craig charging her with sexual offenses against Brooke.
The State moved to allow Brooke and other young children to testify through closed-circuit television. Section 9-102(a) of the Maryland Code provided the court could order a child's testimony be taken outside and shown in the courtroom via closed-circuit television if the testimony was taken during the proceeding and the judge determined in-court testimony by the child would result in such serious emotional distress the child coul...