Shielding an accuser in court must be specifically justified
Shielding an accuser in court must be specifically justified
Shielding an accuser in court must be specifically justified
Shielding an accuser in court is prejudicial to the criminal defendant for the message it sends the jury, for making it harder for the defense and jurors to assess and comment on the demeanor and facial expressions of the witness, and for distancing the witness from their oath. Recently the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that such witness screening must be justified on a case-by-case basis: “Under Coy and Craig, a trial court may not deny a defendant his Sixth Amendment right to meet his accusers face to face simply because a state statute permits screening. Nor may a court authorize screening based on ‘generalized finding[s]’ of necessity underlying such a statute. Coy, 487 U. S., at 1021. Instead, the Sixth Amendment tolerates screening in child-abuse cases only if a court ‘hear[s] evidence’ and issues a ‘case-specific’ finding of “[t]he requisite . . . necessity.” See Craig, 497 U. S., at 855. The Mississippi Supreme Court attempted to avoid these constraints by distinguishing Coy and Craig in various ways. But none of the court’s distinctions persuades.” Pitts v. Mississippi, 607 U.S. ___, 2025 WL 3260171 (2025). As a Fairfax criminal lawyer, I regret that such screening can so easily be obtained by the prosecution, but am at least heartened that any such request by the commonwealth’s attorney’s office must be justified on a case by case basis with evidence.
What does the state code say about shielding child accusers from Virginia criminal defendants at trial?
The Virginia Code says: “In any criminal proceeding, including preliminary hearings, involving an alleged offense against a child, relating to a violation of the laws pertaining to kidnapping…, criminal sexual assault…, commercial sex trafficking or prostitution offenses… or family offenses… or involving an alleged murder of a person of any age, the attorney for the Commonwealth or the defendant may apply for an order from the court that the testimony of the alleged victim or a child witness be taken in a room outside the courtroom and be televised by two-way closed-circuit television or other securely encrypted two-way audio and video technology.” Virginia Code § 18.2-67.9 Consequently, when a prosecutor seeks such shielding, the court must apply Pitts before issuing a witness screening order against a Virginia criminal defendant.
Nothing beats being able to eyeball a Virginia witness in a criminal trial
During the height of the Covid-19 epidemic, I would object to having witnesses testify remotely and to testify with a mask. Judges and jurors need to see the witness in person and unmasked to not be hampered in determining the extent of the witness’s credibility. When a trial judge has substantial trial experience, the judge knows the prejudice to a criminal defendant of shielding or distancing or masking a witness. Certainly, Virginia trial judges are going to address the interests of alleged victims as to the trauma and vocal freezing that testifying in court can cause a non-adult witness in court. On top of that, Virginia trial judges at criminal sentencing are obligated to hear and consider what victims have to say. Let us keep in mind that Virginia’s witness screening law applies to both the following underage alleged victims and witnesses: ” The provisions of this section shall apply to an alleged victim who was 14 years of age or younger at the time of the alleged offense and is 16 years of age or younger at the time of the trial and to a witness who is 14 years of age or younger at the time of the trial.” Id.
What should I do if the Virginia prosecutor in my case seeks screening of my alleged minor victim
Make sure that your Virginia criminal lawyer knows the witness shielding limits set forth by Pitts, Coy and Cody. This is your life and liberty on the line, and a spirited and real opposition must be presented against any such screening. If such screening is permitted by the court, talk with your lawyer about how to reduce the prejudice to you of such an order, whether that be for your lawyer to tell the jury how it has been unable to fully eyeball the minor witness or otherwise.
You have been accused of a Virginia felony, misdemeanor or DUI offense. Now what? A great start to your crucial defense is to meet with top-rated Fairfax criminal lawyer Jonathan Katz for your free strictly confidential initial in-person consulation about your court-pending prosecution. Through your meeting with Jon, you will feel more informed and confident about your defenses. Jon Katz usually can meet with you within one business day of your contacting his staff at 703-383-1100, Info@KatzJustice.com or (text) 571-406-7268.
