ILNews

Change allows closed-circuit testimony for child victims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On July 1, Indiana will begin allowing the use of closed-circuit testimony in certain court cases. Introduced as House Bill 1215 and signed into law by Gov. Mitch Daniels, the amendment to Indiana Criminal Code 35-37-4-6 may help minimize emotional distress for child victims.

The legislation modifies code to say that for the purposes of verifying the time, content, and circumstances of a child victim’s videotaped testimony in a criminal case, the child may attend a hearing via closed-circuit television. Previously, the code stated the child must be present at the hearing.

Advocates say it’s a step in the right direction in minimizing harm to child victims.

deLaney-ann-mug.jpg DeLaney

Ann DeLaney, executive director of the Julian Center, said, “We have a responsibility to make things as easy as possible, within the confines of the law. Obviously, the defendant has the right to confront the accuser, but taking away barriers that intimidate victims just make sense.

“I used to prosecute child abuse cases – it’s intimidating for a child to come into a courtroom with all those grownups anyway, let alone face their abuser,” she said.

Many other states have been using closed-circuit testimony in cases that involve crimes against children. In Virginia, such a law has existed since 1988.

Virginia Criminal Code 18.2-67.9 is similar to Indiana’s new law, but it offers children additional protections that Indiana does not include.

Lt. Dave Beckner of the Virginia State Police said that the criminal code was modified about 10 years ago to extend the use of closed-circuit testimony to children who are witnesses to murder. He said that each year, the state police’s technical division receives between 70 and 85 requests from courts to install closed-circuit equipment. Between 1994 and 2003, he said, the majority of requests came from courts where a child was testifying as the victim of aggravated sexual battery. In that same period, only four courts requested closed-circuit television for a child’s testimony in a murder case, he said.

Laura Berry, executive director of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said that while prosecutors tend to avoid putting children on the witness stand whenever possible, their testimony may be needed in cases of domestic violence.

“Children will get called upon if they witnessed an incident of violence, if the offender won’t plead guilty, or if the child is the one who called 911,” she said. “Testifying as a child is so traumatic, and you have to face someone who is either your dad or your mom and talk about what they’ve done – that’s really hard.”

ICADV reports that between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, emergency shelters in Indiana served 4,461 adults and 3,895 children. Berry said that all of the children come to the shelter with a parent and may be either a primary victim or a secondary victim.

“There is a significant overlap between child abuse and domestic violence,” she said.

abuseKerry Hyatt Blomquist, ICADV’s legal director, said domestic violence is the most underreported crime in the nation. She wondered why HB 1215 did not include adult victims of domestic violence as “protected persons,” and why no one asked for ICADV’s input on the bill.

“It would’ve been nice to have been brought to the table,” she said. “I think it’s important to know that there’s a constituency out there that is largely not being considered.”

Blomquist said she understands that constitutional challenges may make it more difficult to extend the same protections to adults as children – a defendant is entitled to confront an alleged victim. In many states that allow children to testify via closed-circuit television, challenges to the law have been heard in court.

In the case of Maryland V. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee criminal defendants an absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial. The case involved a daycare operator accused of sexual abuse of a child, whose testimony was provided via one-way closed-circuit television, shielding the victim from the defendant. The defense was able to make objections as if the witness were in the courtroom.

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause’s central purpose is to ensure the reliability of evidence against a defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testimony. The court held that if the victim is able to be cross-examined, thereby testing the reliability of testimony, and if shielding the victim upholds an important public policy, then the defendant’s right to confrontation is satisfied. The court also held that Maryland’s asserted interest in protecting child abuse victims was sufficiently compelling to warrant a shielding procedure.

In the divided opinion, four justices dissented.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT