# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 19 10

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ San to s R os al es -Ma rti ne z

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Nick Lud wick , W ard en

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Sio ux Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: May 17, 2 01 8 Fil ed : J un e 2 2, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BENTON, an d S TRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

San to s Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z was co nv ic te d of se co nd de gr e e se xu al ab us e, in

v i o l at io n of Io wa Co de § 70 9.3 (1 )(b ). He so ug ht a writ of ha be as co rp us u n d e r 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 arg ui ng th at t h e t r i a l co ur t vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to co nf ro nt at io n. Thedi st ric t co ur t de ni ed rel ie f. He ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 , 1
th is co ur t af

fir m s.

Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z was ch arg ed wit h se xu al ab us e i n t h e se co nd de gr ee fo r in ap pr op ria te ly to uc hi ng hi s st ep -d au gh te r, A.C. Befo re tri al
, th e St at e m ov ed fo r a pr ot ect iv e or de r fo r A.C.’ s de po si ti on , req ui rin g th at Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z be se pa rat ed fro m he r by a on e-way m irr or , an d th at sh e no t b e t o l d h e i s on th e ot he r si de

. Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z co ns en te d to th e on e-way m irr or , bu t req ue st ed A.C. be to ld he was pr es en t and co ul d hea r he r. At a he ari ng on Ju ne 11 , 20 01 , th e ch il d’s th erap is t and he r fo st er m ot he r te st ifi ed

. Acco rd in g to th e th erap is t, A.C. is co nc ern ed ab ou t se ei ng Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z, co n t i n u a l ly afra id of ru nn in g in to hi m , an d wou ld be ve ry tra um at iz ed if sh e kn ew he was in th e sa m e bu il di ng

. The fo st er m ot he r te st ifi ed th at A.C. enc ou nt ered hi m at a pa rad e an d was in a st at e o f pa ni c fo r ne arl y 30 m in ut es

. On J ul y 5, t he co ur t d en ie d R os al es -Ma rti ne z’s req ue st , m ak in g t he se fin di ng s:

A.C. wou ld su ffer se rio us tra um a ca u s e d b y te st ifyin g in th e ph y si cal pr es en ce of th e de fen da nt an d th at it wou ld im pa ir A.C.’ s ab il it y to

co m m un ic at e an d th at th e pr ot e c t iv e m eas ur es st ip ul at ed to by th e pa rti es an d en do rs ed by th e Co u r t are ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect A.C. fro m tra um a.

. . . The Co ur t fin ds an d th e pa rti es st ip ul at e th at th e de fen da nt sh al l rem ai n be hi nd a on e-way m irr or w h e r e he can se e an d he ar A.C. bu t t ha t A.C. ca nn ot he ar n or see de fen da nt

.

Befo re th e fir st tri al
, th e S t a t e mo v e d fo r a pr ot ect iv e or de r fo r A.C.’ s tri al
te st im on y

. Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z ag reed to A.C. t es ti fy in g b y clo se d- ci rcu it tel ev is io n, bu t ag ai n req ue st ed sh e be to ld he was pr es en t an d co ul d he ar he r. Rel y in g on th e pr ev iou s fi ndi ngs, the jud ge de ni ed Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z’s req ue st

. The jury de adloc ke d. The co ur t de cl ared a m is tri al

. Befo re th e ret ria l be ga n on Ja nu ary 8, 20 02 , th e co ur t
ag ai n di sc us se d A.C.’s t ria l t es ti m on y . A.C.’ s g ua rd ia n a d l it em to ld th e tri al co ur t

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Ch ie f Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. -2

-th at th e pr ev io us pr oc ed ur e was st il l ne ces sa ry ba se d on co nv ers at io ns wit h A.C. The

pa rti es ag reed to th e pr oc ed ur e us ed in th e fir st tri al

. The co ur t rei te rat ed it s pr ev io us fin di ng s.

Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z was fo un d gu il ty. He ap pe al ed

. The Io wa Co ur t of App eal s affi rm ed

. S

e e St at e v. Ro sa le s-

Ma rt in ez , 66 6 N.W .2d 62 1 (Io wa Ct

. App

. 20 03 ) (ta bl e) (te xt in 20 03 W L 21 22 91 34 ). He th en so ug ht po st -co nv ic ti on r e l i e f, whi ch

was de ni ed

. The Io wa Co ur t of App eal s ag ai n affi rm ed

. Se e R o s a l e s - M a r ti nez v. St at e , 81 0 N.W .2d 26 ( Io wa Ct

. App

. 20 11 ) (ta bl e) (te xt in 20 11 W L 67 40 15 2)

. Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z pe ti ti on ed fo r a writ of ha be as co rp us in fed eral co ur t. The di st ric t

co ur t d is m is se d b ut gra nt ed a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y

.

Rev ie w is li m it ed to th e is su e in th e cert ifi cat e of ap pe al ab il it y

. Sco tt v. Unit ed St at es , 47 3 F.3 d 12 62 , 12 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). The di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact are

rev ie wed fo r cl ear erro r an d co nc lu si on s of la w de no vo

. Id

. Thi s co ur t “ m ay affi rm th e jud gm en t on an y gr ou nd s su pp or te d by th e reco rd .” Land v. Wa sh

. Ct y. , 24 3 F.3 d 10 93 , 10 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). A w r i t of ha be as co rp us m ay be gr an te d “ to a st at e pr is on er if th e st at e co ur t de ci si on ‘w as co n t r a r y to , or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le
ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl i s h e d Fed eral la w

. . . or

. . . was ba se d on an

un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d in th e St at e

co ur t pr oc e e d in g.’” Gar ri so n v. Bur t , 6 37 F.3 d 84 9, 85 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), el li ps in g 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d)

.

The is su e he re i s whe th er th e st at e co ur ts ’ de ci si on s are co nt rary to , or an

un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of
, Mar yl an d v. C

r a i g , 49 7 U.S. 83 6 (1 99 0)

. “ In al l cri m in al pr os ecu ti on s, th e accu se d sh al l en joy th e rig ht

. . . to be co nf ro nt ed wit h th e wit ne ss es ag ai ns t hi m .” Cr ai g , 49 7 U.S. at 84 4. Howev er, face -to -fac e co nf ro nt at io n is no t “ an in di sp en sa bl e el em en t of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t’s gu aran te e of th e rig ht to

co nf ro nt on e’s accu se rs .” Id

. at 84 9- 50

. Th e “ us e of th e on e-way cl os ed ci rcu it
te le vi si on pr oc ed ur e, whe re ne ces sa ry to fu rth er an im po rta nt st at e in te res t, do es no t

-3

-im

pi ng e up on th e tru th -s eek in g or sym bo li c pu rp os es of th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se .” Id

. at 85 2. The “ St at e’s in te res t in th e pr ot ect io n of m in or vi ct im s of se x cri m es fro m fu rth er tra um a an d em

ba rras sm en t is a co m

pe ll in g on e.” Id

. , ci ti ng Glo be News

pa pe r Co

. v. Sup er

. Ct

. of Nor fo lk Ct y. , 45 7 U.S. 59 6, 60 7 (1 98 2) (in te rn a l q u o ta ti on s

om it te d)

. “ It is ev id en t be y on d th e ne ed fo r el ab or at io n th at a S ta te ’s in te res t in

sa feg ua rd in g th e ph y si cal an d ps y ch ol og ic al well -b ei ng of a m in o r is co m pe ll in g.” Id

. at 85 2- 53 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)
, qu ot in g Osb or ne v. Ohio , 49 5 U.S. 10 3, 10 9 (1 99 0)

. Thi s in te res t m ay “ ou twei gh

. . . a d e f e n d a n t ’s rig ht to face hi s or he r

accu se rs in co ur t.” Id

. at 8 53

.

W he n “ th e St at e m ak es an ad eq ua te s h o w i n g of ne ces si ty,” it s in te res t “ is

su ffi ci en tl y im

po rta nt to jus ti fy th e us e of a sp eci a l p r o c e d u r e th at pe rm it s a ch il d wit ne ss in su ch cas es to te st ify at tri al ag ai ns t a de fen da nt in th e ab se nc e of face -to

face co nf ro nt at io n.” Id

. at 85 5. Thi s fin di ng of ne ces s i t y must be “ cas e-s pe ci fic ,” ba se d on ev id ence , to de te rm in e whe th er a di ffer en t pr oc ed ur e “ is ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect th e welf are of th e pa rti cu la r ch il d wit ne ss .” Id

. The t r i a l c o u r t m

us t “ fin d th at th e

c h i l d w i tn es s wou ld be tra um at iz ed
, no t by th e co ur tro om ge ne ral ly, bu t by th e pr es en ce of th e de fen da nt .” Id

. at 85 6. The tra um a m

us t be “ m or e th an de min imi s, i.e., m or e th an ‘m ere ner vo us ne ss or ex ci te m en t or so m e rel uc ta nc e to te st ify.’ ” Id

.

“ [W] he re face-t o- face co nf ro nt at io n c au se s s ig ni fic an t em ot io na l d is tre ss in a ch il d wit ne ss , th ere is ev id en ce th at su ch co nf ro nt a t i o n wou ld in fact di ss er ve th e Co nf ro nt at io n Cl au se ’s tru th -s eek in g go al .” Id

. at 85 7, ci ti ng Co

y v. Io wa , 48 7 U.S. 10 12 , 10 32 (19 88 ) (Bl ack m un , J., di ss en ti ng ).

In Cr ai g , th e ch il d ab us e vi ct im s te st ifi ed by cl os ed -ci rcu it te le vi si on aft er th e tri al co ur t fo un d th at th ey wou ld su ffe r s e v e r e em ot io na l di st res s an d be un ab le to

co m m un ic at e if face -to -fac e wit h th e de fen da nt

. Afte r a pr op er fin di ng of ne ces si ty,

a ch il d wit ne ss m ay te st ify by us e of a sp eci al pr oc ed ur e if un de r oa th
, su bjec t to fu ll

cro ss -ex am in at io n, an d “ ob se rv ed by” th e jud ge , jury , and de fen da nt

. Id

.

-4

-Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z arg ue s th at th e tri al co ur t erred by no t m ak in g new exp res s

fin di ng s of ne ces si ty in th e ret ria l to s u p p or t th e sp eci al pr oc ed ur e fo r A.C.’ s te st im on y

. The tri al co ur t in co rp or at ed it s pr ev io us fin di ng s m ad e si x m on th s earl ie r, wit h no reas on to do ub t th em

. Ro sa le s- Ma r t i n e z as se rts th is vi ol at es Cr ai g

. Bu t Cr ai g do es no t req ui re th e tri al co ur t to co nd uc t a ne w Cr ai g he ari ng at ev ery st ag e. Sect io n 22 54 (d )(1 ) “ do es no t req ui re st at e co ur ts to ex te nd [S upre m e Co ur t] pr eced en t

or li cen se fed eral co ur ts to tre at th e fai lu re to do so as erro r.” Whi te v. Wo od al l , 13 4 S. Ct . 16 97 , 17 06 (20 14 ) (em ph as is in ori gi na l).

Ro sa le s- Mar ti ne z is no t en ti tl ed to ha be as co rp us rel ie f.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-