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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT