## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 0 6 4 4

- 1 0

T O M M Y C O R O N A D O

, A p p e l l a n t

v

.

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W

F R O M T H E S E V E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

D E A F S M I T H C O U N T Y

C O C H R A N

, J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t i n w h i c h P R IC E

, W O M A C K

,

J O H N S O N a n d A L C A L A

, J J

. , j o i n e d

. H E R V E Y

, J

. , f i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h

K E A S L E R

, J

. , j o i n e d

. K E L L E R

, P

. J

. , f i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n

. M E Y E R S

, J

. , d i s s e n t e d

.

O P I N I O N

W e g r a n t e d r e v i e w o f t h i s c a s e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e v i d e o t a p e p r o c e d u r e s s e t o u t

i n A r t i c l e 3 8

. 0 7 1

, § 2

, i n c l u d i n g t h e u s e o f w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s i n l i e u o f l i v e t e s t i m o n y 1

a n d c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, s a t i s f y t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d c r o s s

-

T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C . art. 38.071, §2. 1Coronado Pag e 2

e x a m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s C r a w f o r d l i n e o f c a s e s

. I n t h i s a g g r a v a t e d

- s e x u a l

2 3

a s s a u l t

- o f

- a

- c h i l d p r o s e c u t i o n

, t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s f o u n d “ n o e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s

d e c i s i o n t o a l l o w c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s o n l y ” a n d t o a d m i t t h e c h i l d

c o m p l a i n a n t ’ s t w o v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s w i t h a c h i l d

- a b u s e f o r e n s i c e x a m i n e r i n s t e a d o f

r e q u i r i n g l i v e t e s t i m o n y

. 4

A l t h o u g h w e a g r e e t h a t t h e r e m u s t b e b a l a n c e b e t w e e n a d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o

c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d a s o c i e t a l n e e d t o p r o t e c t f r a g i l e a n d t r a u m a t i z e d c h i l d v i c t i m s

, t h a t

b a l a n c e c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y b e s t r u c k b y t h e m e t h o d s e t o u t i n S e c t i o n 2 o f A r t i c l e

3 8

. 0 7 1

. O n f

e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l m a t t e r s

, w e a r e o b l i g e d t o f o l l o w t h e d i c t a t e s o f t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t r e g a r d l e s s o f o u r o w n n o t i o n s

. W e t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f 5

t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s b e c a u s e i t e r r o n e o u s l y h e l d t h a t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a d e q u a t e c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n c a n b e d o n e t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s p o s e d b y a “ n e u t r a l ”

Crawf ord v. W ashington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004); Davis v. W ashington , 547 U.S. 813 2

(2006); Giles v. California , 554 U.S. 353 (2008); Mele ndez-Diaz v . Massachusetts , 129 S.Ct

. 2527 (2009); Michigan v. Bry ant , 131 S.Ct . 1143 (2011); Bullcoming v. New Me xico , 131 S.Ct

. 2705 (2011).

Appellant’s sole g round for revie w states, 3

Does a videotaped inter

view of the complainant by a neutr al questioner, w ith a list

of questions submitted by the def endant ove r objec tion, satisfy the Six th

Amendment rig ht to cross-examination in the form of “ rigorous testing in the

context of an adversary

proce eding ? ”

Coronado v. State , 310 S.W .3d 156, 165 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010). 4

Casarez v. State , 913 S.W .2d 468, 475 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (“As judg es on this 5

honorable Court, we ar e bound to apply the United States Constitut ion as interpre ted by the

Supreme Court; we do not ha ve the luxury or the liberty

to ignor e binding prec edent.” ).Coronado Pag e 3

f o r e n s i c i n t e r v i e w e r m o r e t h a n a y e a r a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w

. 6

I

.

T h r e e

- y e a r

- o l d R

. D

. s t a y e d w i t h h e r g r e a t

- g r a n d m o t h e r f o r c h i l d c a r e

. A p p e l l a n t i s

R

. D

. ’ s g r e a t

- u n c l e w h o

, w i t h h i s w i f e

, m o v e d i n t o t h e g r e a t

- g r a n d m o t h e r ’ s h o m e i n t h e

s p r i n g o f 2 0 0 7

. I n A u g u s t o f t h a t y e a r

, R

. D

. s t a r t e d a c t i n g “ s t r a n g e ” a n d “ w a l k i n g a r o u n d

l i k e a z o m b i e

. ” H e r f

a t h e r a s k e d h e r i f a n y o n e h a d t o u c h e d h e r “ c o o k i e ”

– R

. D

. ’ s w o r d f o r

h e r v a g i n a

– a n d h e n a m e d o f f v a r i o u s p e o p l e t h a t s h e h a d b e e n a r o u n d

. W h e n h e n a m e d

a p p e l l a n t

, R

. D

. s a i d

, “ Y e s

. ” R

. D

. ’ s p a r e n t s c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e

. 7

A w e e k l a t e r

, R

. D

. ’ s f

a m i l y t o o k h e r t o T h e B r i d g e A d v o c a c y C e n t e r

, w h e r e a f o r e n s i c

i n t e r v i e w e r v i d e o t a p e d a n i n t e r v i e w w i t h R

. D

. T h r o u g h o u t m o s t o f t h e i n t e r v i e w

, R

. D

. w a s

l o o k i n g d o w n a t t h e p i c t u r e s t h a t s h e w a s v i g o r o u s l y c o l o r i n g

. S h e c o r r e c t l y a n s w e r e d s o m e

o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r ’ s q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g h e r b o d y p a r t s a n d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a n i m a l s a n d

c o l o r s

, b u t s h e a n s w e r e d o t h e r s i n c o r r e c t l y

. S h e s e e m e d u n i n t e r e s t e d i n m a n y o f t h e

i n t e r v i e w e r ’ s q u e s t i o n s a n d s e v e r a l t i m e s s a i d t h a t s h e w a n t e d t o g o w a t c h S p i d e r m a n o n T V

.

W h e n s h e c o u l d n ’ t l e a v e

, s h e f o l d e d h e r a r m s a n d

, a t f i r s t

, w o u l d n o t c o o p e r a t e

.

E v e n t u a l l y

, s h e s a i d t h a t h e r a u n t s a w a p p e l l a n t t o u c h h e r “ c o o k i e ” a n d t h a t h e r

g r a n d m o t h e r s a w h i m d o i t a n d “ s p a n k e d ” h i m f o r i t

. I n f

a c t

, n e i t h e r t h e a u n t n o r t h e

Coronado, 310 S.W .3d. at 165. 6

R.D.’s hea

rsay statement wa s admitted under Ar ticle 38.072, which pr ovides for the 7

admissibili ty

of a c hild’s initi al “outcr y ” to an a dult only

when “ the child . . . testifies or is

available to testify

at the proc eeding in court or in any other manne r provided by law.” T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art. 38.072, § 2(b) (3).Coronado Pag e 4

g r a n d m o t h e r h a d s e e n a p p e l l a n t t o u c h t h e v i c t i m

. R

. D

. w a s a l s o e x a m i n e d b y a s e x u a l

a s s a u l t n u r s e w h o f

o u n d t h a t h e r h y m e n w a s i r r e g u l a r a n d t h a t t h i s h e a l e d i n j u r y h a d b e e n

c a u s e d b y p e n e t r a t i o n

.

B e f o r e t r i a l

, t h e S t a t e f

i l e d a m o t i o n t o r e q u e s t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o f i n d R

. D

. – n o w f

i v e

y e a r s o l d

– u n a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y a n d t o a d m i t t h e v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w i n s t e a d

. R

. D

. ’ s

t h e r a p i s t t e s t i f

i e d a n d s a i d t h a t s h e b e l i e v e d t h a t t e s t i f y i n g i n f r o n t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t o r

t e s t i f y i n g v i a c l o s e d c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n w o u l d b e h a r m f u l

. S h e t h o u g h t t h a t s u b m i t t i n g 8

w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t h r o u g h a f e m a l e i n t e r v i e w e r w a s t h e “ b e s t o p t i o n

. ” O v e r t h e

a p p e l l a n t ’ s o b

j e c t i o n

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d t h a t R

. D

. w a s u n a v a i l a b l e t o t e s t i f y a n d t h a t 9

The ther apist testified extensively to the trauma tha t R.D. had initially suffe red, the 8

prog ress that she ha d made dur ing the rapy , and to a r elapse that R.D. had experienc ed as the trial

date a pproac hed. The thera

pist thought that R.D. would suffe r fur ther tra uma, not so much from

the ac t of testify ing, but f rom being made to re call the e vents, reg ardle ss of the setting . She

stated:

At this point , the abuse is almost–I mean she was thre e. I think that it can be

near ly forg otten. I think it could be non–non–not impactful beca use she wa s so

very y oung , but we’r e looking at her now at five

. She’s so much more soc ially awa re. She’ s much more a

war e of pr ivacy

and modesty . And to–to relive this and, also, to try to put into words an

experience that she had a

t three, I believe, is–is impossible and is very –is very

damag ing.

The ther apist testified that any further questioning w ould be damag ing be cause it would cause

R.D. to remember

the eve nt, “something that needs to be put to rest.”

Appellant’s c ounsel specif ically objected to the use of written inter rog atories, a s well as 9

the g ener al proc edure s set out in Article 38.071, § 2:

And I think Mr. Coronado just has a rig ht–the issue I questioned one of the

witnesses about is, with live testimony , things c ome up that y ou need to a sk about,

that y ou didn’t anticipate. . . . With the written interrog atories I ’ll never have tha t

opportunity . So we ar e ce rtainly reque sting a t least the option to [ have] live

testimony with the closed-c ircuit setup.

After the trial judg e rule d that he would re quire the Sec tion 2 methodology , defe nse counse lCoronado Pag e 5

d e f e n s e c o u n s e l c o u l d s u b m i t w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o t h e f o r e n s i c i n t e r v i e w e r

, w h o w o u l d

a s k t h o s e q u e s t i o n s a n d a n y “ f o l l o w u p ” o n e s i n a s e c o n d r e c o r d e d i n t e r v i e w

.

A t t h i s s e c o n d i n t e r v i e w

– c o n d u c t e d f i f t e e n m o n t h s a f

t e r t h e f i r s t o n e

– t h e f

o r e n s i c

i n t e r v i e w e r b e g a n b y d i s c u s s i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t r u t h a n d a l i e

, a n d R

. D

. a p p e a r e d

t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e d i f

f e r e n c e

. N o n e t h e l e s s

, s h e s a i d m o r e t h a n o n c e t h a t t r u t h f u l s t a t e m e n t s

w e r e l i e s

. D u r i n g t h i s i n t e r v i e w

, R

. D

. s a i d t h a t a p p e l l a n t p u t h i s f i n g e r i n h e r “ c o o k i e ” ( a s

o p p o s e d t o t o u c h i n g i t a s s h e h a d s a i d f i f t e e n m o n t h s e a r l i e r )

. T h i s t i m e s h e s a i d t h a t n e i t h e r

h e r a u n t n o r h e r g r a n d m o t h e r s a w a n y s e x u a l c o n t a c t b e t w e e n h e r a n d a p p e l l a n t

.

R

. D

. d i d n o t t e s t i f

y a t t r i a l

, b u t t h e t w o v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w s w e r e a d m i t t e d o v e r

a p p e l l a n t ’ s c o n f

r o n t a t i o n o b

j e c t i o n

. T h e j u r y c o n v i c t e d a p p e l l a n t o f b o t h t o u c h i n g R

. D

. ’ s

g e n i t a l s a n d p e n e t r a t i n g h e r g e n i t a l s a n d s e n t e n c e d h i m t o l i f e i n p r i s o n o n b o t h c o u n t s

.

O n a p p e a l

, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f r i g o r o u s c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n d e n i e d h i m

ag ain stated, “ J ust for purpose s of the re cord, thoug h, the Def ense is objec ting to the Court’s

decision”– [J udg e: “I

understand” ] “about testimony by interrog atories only .”

After the trial judg e rule d, he aske d if counsel ha d his written questions rea dy . He did.

The trial judg e then a sked def ense c ounsel if he a g ree d that the fore nsic interviewe r “w ould try to

follow up on ce rtain questions if it were appropr iate.” D efe nse counse l did ag ree : “[S ]he has my

permission to adjust her questions as the situation may call for .” B ut at that point the prosecutor

objected, sa

y ing tha t the interviewe r mig ht ask a “ follow up” que stion that the defense did not

want to be a sked. De fense counsel then state d that he would at lea st “like to g o to The

Br idge –the interview

is at 2:00 p.m. today

–and be in a

n adjac ent room. And in the e vent

something did c ome up that I felt anothe r question would be a ppropriate , I ’d like to be ther e.”

But the pr osecutor sa id that only law-e nforc ement per sonnel are allowed in the a djace nt room

unless a cour

t files a wr itten order a llowing that. The trial judg e interve ned and told the a ttorney s

that either the interviewe r could a sk follow-up questions or def ense c ounsel would be pe rmitted

to be there . The prose cutor a g ree d that the interview er c ould ask follow-up que stions and

defe nse counse l stated that he didn’t have a proble m with the interviewe r “using her pr ofessional

judge ment in questioning a five-y ear -old child. She’s better at it than I am, I ’m sure.”Coronado Pag e 6

h i s r i g h t t o c o n f

r o n t t h e w i t n e s s

. T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a g r e e d t h a t R

. D

. ’ s o u t

- o f

- c o u r t

s t a t e m e n t s w e r e t e s t i m o n i a l

, b u t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n a l l o w i n g “ c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s o n l y

. ” 1 0

I I

.

A

. P r e

- C r a w

f o r d L a w o n t h e R i g h t t o C o n f r o n t a t i o n

.

T h e C o n f

r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e g i v e s a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t t h e r i g h t “ t o b e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h

t h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t h i m

. ” I n C o y v

. I o w a

, J u s t i c e S c a l i a e x p l a i n e d t h a t “ [ w ] e h a v e n e v e r 1 1 1 2

d o u b t e d

, t h e r e f

o r e

, t h a t t h e C o n f

r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e g u a r a n t e e s t h e d e f e n d a n t a f

a c e

- t o

- f a c e

m e e t i n g w i t h w i t n e s s e s a p p e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i e r o f f

a c t

. ” I n M

a r y l a n d v

. C r a i g

, d e c i d e d 1 3 1 4

j u s t t w o y e a r s l a t e r

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t p u l l e d b a c k f r o m t h a t a b s o l u t e p o s i t i o n

. I t h e l d t h a t

i n s o m e s p e c i a l c a s e s

, w h e n t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s s h o w e d t h a t t h e r e w a s a “ c o m p e l l i n g ” s t a t e

i n t e r e s t

, t h e w i t n e s s n e e d n o t a c t u a l l y c o n f r o n t t h e d e f

e n d a n t f a c e

- t o

- f a c e a s s h e t e s t i f

i e d

,

a l t h o u g h t h e d e f

e n d a n t m u s t b e a b l e t o s e e h e r a s s h e t e s t i f i e d a n d m u s t b e a b l e t o

c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s l y c r o s s

- e x a m i n e h e r

. 1 5

B o t h C o y a n d C r a i g i n v o l v e d p r o s e c u t i o n s f o r s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t i n g a c h i l d

. C o y w a s

Coronado , 310 S.W .3d at 165. 1 0

U.S. C O N S T ., amend. VI

. 1 1

487 U.S. 1012 (1988). 1 2

Id. at 1016. 1 3

497 U.S. 836 (1990). 1 4

Id. at 851-52. 1 5Coronado Pag e 7

a c c u s e d o f m o l e s t i n g t w o t h i r t e e n

- y e a r

- o l d g i r l s w h o w e r e h a v i n g a n o u t d o o r s l e e p o v e r i n

a n e i g h b o r i n g y a r d

. A n I o w a s t a t u t e a l l o w e d p r o s e c u t o r s t o u s e a s c r e e n t o s h i e l d c h i l d 1 6

w i t n e s s e s f

r o m s e e i n g t h e d e f

e n d a n t a s t h e y t e s t i f

i e d

. M o s t o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e r i g h t o f 1 7

c o n f r o n t a t i o n w e r e p r e s e r v e d t h r o u g h t h i s p r o c e d u r e

, b u t t h e w i t n e s s e s c o u l d n o t s e e t h e

d e f e n d a n t a n d t h e d e f

e n d a n t c o u l d n o t s e e t h e w i t n e s s e s a s t h e y t e s t i f i e d

. A n d

, p e r h a p s 1 8

m o s t i m p o r t a n t l y

, t h e j u r y c o u l d n o t s e e h o w t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t i n t e r a c t e d w h e n

e a c h c o n f

r o n t e d t h e o t h e r

. I n a 6

- 2 d e c i s i o n

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h i s p r o c e d u r e 1 9

v i o l a t e d t h e r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t a t i o n

. J u s t i c e S c a l i a n o t e d t h e c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t o f

2 0

p r o t e c t i n g f

r a g i l e c h i l d r e n a n d o t h e r w i t n e s s e s :

T h a t f a c e

- t o

- f a c e p r e s e n c e m a y

, u n f

o r t u n a t e l y

, u p s e t t h e t r u t h f u l r a p e v i c t i m

o r a b u s e d c h i l d ; b u t b y t h e s a m e t o k e n i t m a y c o n f o u n d a n d u n d o t h e f

a l s e

a c c u s e r

, o r r e v e a l t h e c h i l d c o a c h e d b y a m a l e v o l e n t a d u l t

. I t i s a t r u i s m t h a t

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s h a v e c o s t s

. 2 1

I n C r a i g

, h o w e v e r

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

, i n a 5

- 4 d e c i s i o n

, u p h e l d t h e u s e o f a o n e

- w a y

c l o s e d

- c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n f o r q u e s t i o n i n g a s i x

- y e a r

- o l d c h i l d i n l i e u o f f a c e

- t o

- f a c e

Coy , 487 U.S. at 1014. 1 6

Id . (citing I O W A C O D E § 910A.14 (1987))

. 1 7

Id. at 1014-15. 1 8

Id. at 1019-20. 1 9

Id. at 1021-22. The case was re manded to the I owa Supre me Court to assess whethe r 2 0

the er ror wa s harmful. I t was har mful, and the de fenda

nt was entitled to a ne w trial. State v.

Coy , 433 N.W.2d 714, 715 (I owa 1988)

.

Coy , 487 U.S. at 1020. 2 1Coronado Pag e 8

c o n f r o n t a t i o n i n t h e c o u r t r o o m i t s e l f

. A M a r y l a n d s t a t u t e a u t h o r i z e d t h i s p r o c e d u r e i f t h e 2 2

t r i a l j u d g e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t “ t e s t i m o n y b y t h e c h i l d v i c t i m i n t h e c o u r t r o o m w i l l r e s u l t i n t h e

c h i l d s u f

f e r i n g s e r i o u s e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s s u c h t h a t t h e c h i l d c a n n o t r e a s o n a b l y

c o m m u n i c a t e

. ” U n d e r t h i s p r o c e d u r e

, t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d s e e t h e c h i l d a s s h e t e s t i f i e d

, b u t 2 3

s h e c o u l d n o t s e e t h e d e f e n d a n t

.

A c c o r d i n g t o J u s t i c e O ’ C o n n o r

, t h i s p r o c e d u r e d i d n o t v i o l a t e t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n

C l a u s e b e c a u s e t h a t p r o v i s i o n c a n b e r e d u c e d t o i t s “ c e n t r a l c o n c e r n

, ” w h i c h i s “ t o e n s u r e t h e

r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t b y s u b

j e c t i n g i t t o r i g o r o u s t e s t i n g i n

t h e c o n t e x t o f a n a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i e r o f f

a c t

. ” R i g o r o u s a n d 2 4

c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n c o u l d

, u n d e r s o m e s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, a l l e v i a t e t h e

n e e d f o r f a c e

- t o

- f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n

. T h e C o u r t s t r e s s e d t h a t o n l y t h e w i t n e s s ’ s a b i l i t y t o

c o n f r o n t t h e d e f

e n d a n t f a c e

- t o

- f a c e w a s a f

f e c t e d

– n o o t h e r p o r t i o n o f t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t

r i g h t o f c o n f

r o n t a t i o n w a s c o m p r o m i s e d :

[ T h e o n e

- w a y c l o s e d

- c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n p r o c e d u r e ] “ ( 1 ) i n s u r e s t h a t t h e w i t n e s s

w i l l g i v e h i s s t a t e m e n t s u n d e r o a t h

– t h u s i m p r e s s i n g h i m w i t h t h e s e r i o u s n e s s

o f t h e m a t t e r a n d g u a r d i n g a g a i n s t t h e l i e b y t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p e n a l t y f o r

p e r j u r y ; ( 2 ) f

o r c e s t h e w i t n e s s t o s u b m i t t o c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, t h e ‘ g r e a t e s t

l e g a l e n g i n e e v e r i n v e n t e d f o r t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t r u t h ’; [ a n d ] ( 3 ) p e r m i t s t h e j u r y

t h a t i s t o d e c i d e t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s f

a t e t o o b s e r v e t h e d e m e a n o r o f t h e w i t n e s s

Craig , 497 U.S. at 840. The fe male def endant wa s char g ed with sexually molesting the 2 2

littl e g irl who attende d a kinder g arte n that the def endant owne d and oper ated. Id. at 840-41.

Id. at 841 (quoting M D

. C T S

. & J U D

. P R O C

. C O D E AN N . § 9-102(a )(1) (ii) (1989))

. 2 3

Id. at 845. 2 4Coronado Pag e 9

i n m a k i n g h i s s t a t e m e n t

, t h u s a i d i n g t h e j u r y i n a s s e s s i n g h i s c r e d i b i l i t y

. ” 2 5

T h u s

, t h e “ c o m b i n e d e f

f e c t o f t h e s e e l e m e n t s o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n

– p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e

, o a t h

, c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n

, a n d o b s e r v a t i o n o f d e m e a n o r b y t h e t r i e r o f f a c t

– s e r v e s t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e

C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e b y e n s u r i n g t h a t e v i d e n c e a d m i t t e d a g a i n s t a n a c c u s e d i s r e l i a b l e a n d

s u b j e c t t o t h e r i g o r o u s a d v e r s a r i a l t e s t i n g t h a t i s t h e n o r m o f A n g l o

- A m e r i c a n c r i m i n a l

p r o c e e d i n g s

. ” 2 6

J u s t i c e S c a l i a

, t h e a u t h o r o f C o y j u s t t w o y e a r s e a r l i e r

, w r o t e a s c a t h i n g d i s s e n t t h a t

b e g a n

, “ S e l d o m h a s t h i s C o u r t f a i l e d s o c o n s p i c u o u s l y t o s u s t a i n a c a t e g o r i c a l g u a r a n t e e o f

t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a g a i n s t t h e t i d e o f p r e v a i l i n g c u r r e n t o p i n i o n

. ” H e s t a t e d

, 2 7

T h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t p r o v i d e s

, w i t h u n m i s t a k a b l e c l a r i t y

, t h a t “[ i ] n a l l

c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s

, t h e a c c u s e d s h a l l e n j o y t h e r i g h t

. . . t o b e c o n f r o n t e d

w i t h t h e w i t n e s s e s a g a i n s t h i m

. ” T h e p u r p o s e o f e n s h r i n i n g t h i s p r o t e c t i o n i n

t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n w a s t o a s s u r e t h a t n o n e o f t h e m a n y p o l i c y i n t e r e s t s f r o m t i m e

Id. at 845-46, 851 (quoting Calif ornia v. Gree n , 399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970)). 2 5

Id. at 846. The pr ovisions of Article 38.071, § 3, pre senting a child’s testimony via 2 6

closed-c ircuit television, are simil ar to those discusse d in Craig . That methodolog y was uphe ld

by this Court i n Gonzales v. State , 818 S.W .2d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), in which we he ld

that the use of a

two-wa y closed-c ircuit television sy stem to obtain the testimony of a c hild

witness did not violate the defe ndant’s conf rontation rig hts under Craig . I n that case , the trial

judge had dete rmined that use of such a sy stem was nec essar y to protect the c hild’s well-being

and that she w ould suffer sever e tra

uma if for ced to testify

in the courtroom. Id . at 759-60. The

sy stem provided a live, two- way prese ntation of the child’s testimony and allowe d for r igor ous,

contempora

neous cr oss-examination, as well as any nece ssary

objections to the questions or

answe rs g iven. Id. at 764. The w itness and def endant c ould view one a

nother a nd could be

observe d by

the judg e and jur

y . The witness wa s merely in another r oom. Id. See also Marx v.

State , 987 S.W .2d 577, 582-83 (Te x . Crim. App. 1999) (upholding use of the me thodology set

out in art. 38.071, § 3, over a Confrontation Clause objec tion, even whe n one child wa s over the

ag e of twe lve and the othe r child wa s not the victim of the offe nse).

497 U.S. at 860 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 2 7Coronado Pag e 10

t o t i m e p u r s u e d b y s t a t u t o r y l a w c o u l d o v e r c o m e a d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o f

a c e h i s

o r h e r a c c u s e r s i n c o u r t

. 2 8

T h i s l a n g u a g e

, t h a t e v e n c o m p e l l i n g s o c i a l p o l i c i e s m a y n o t o v e r r i d e t h e S i x t h

A m e n d m e n t r i g h t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n

, e c h o e d J u s t i c e S c a l i a ’ s l a n g u a g e i n C o y

. T h e S u p r e m e

C o u r t h a s n e v e r o v e r t u r n e d t h e h o l d i n g i n C r a i g

, b u t

, b e g i n n i n g w i t h C r a w f o r d v

.

W a s h i n g t o n

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s n i b b l e d i t i n t o S w i s s c h e e s e b y r e p e a t i n g t h e

2 9

c a t e g o r i c a l n a t u r e o f t h e r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t a t i o n i n e v e r y o n e o f i t s m o r e r e c e n t c a s e s

. 3 0

Id. at 860-61 (Sca lia, J ., dissenting)

. 2 8

541 U.S. 36 (2004). 2 9

Aca demics have noted the enor mous impact that the Crawf ord line of ca ses has ha d 3 0

upon both domestic-violence and child-a buse ca ses. Such prosec utions have bec ome much more

difficult bec ause the victim must almost alway s testify at trial to satisfy

the Confrontation Clause.

See, e .g., David M. Wag ner, The End of the “Virtual ly Constitut ional”? T he Confrontation

Right and Crawf

ord v. Washington as a Prelude to Rev ersal of Mary land v. Craig , 19 R E G E N T

U.L

. R E V . 469, 469 (2006) ( noting that–a fter Crawf ord –a “f orthrig ht holding that the g overnme nt

may deny a cr iminal defenda

nt a conf rontation with his accuse r bec ause a ‘compe lling state

interest’ is pre sent, in, say , combating child abuse, w ould invite obvious and well-founde d

objections of the ‘ slippery slope’ var iety ” in ar g uing tha t the Supreme Court will overturn its

prior dec ision in Craig

based upon the constitutional analy sis of Crawf ord ); My rna S. Raede r,

Comments on Child Abuse Lit igation in a “ Testimonial” W orld: The Intersec tion of

Competenc

y, He arsay, and Confrontati on, 82 I N D . L .J . 1009, 1023 (2007) ( discussing the use of

fore nsic interviews in c hild-abuse c ases; stating that “ Crawf ord appea rs to doom the use of

multidi sciplinary

teams in child abuse a s a wa y of introducing statements of c hildren who do not

testify ” and la

menting tha t “ Crawf

ord has turned the se best pra ctices into a te x tbook for cr eating

testimonial statements when the c hild does not testify .”); Kimber ly Y. Chin, “Minute and

Separate”: Considering the Admissibil ity of Videotaped Forensic I nterviews in Child Sexual

Abuse Cases After Crawf ord and Davis, 30 B .C. T H I R D W O R L D L .J . 67 (2010) ( noting that, unde r Crawf ord , child-abuse fore nsic videotape s are g ener ally inadmissible when the child is

unavailable to testify

at trial, and sug g esting that some videotape s could be re dacte d to eliminate

all testimonial statements); Prudence Be idler Carr , Comment: Playing By All the Rules: How to

Define and Prov ide a “Prior Opportunit y for Cross-Examination” in C hild Sexual Abuses Cases

After Crawf

ord v. Washington

, 97 J

. C R I M

. L

. & C R I M I N O L O G Y 631 (2007) ( noting the e normous impact that the Crawf

ord decision has ha d upon child-sexual-abuse c ases, but ar g uing tha t

pretria l videotapes may

still be admissible under both Crawf

ord and Craig

if the def endant isCoronado Pag e 11

B

. T h e R i g h t t o C o n f r o n t a t i o n u n d e r C r a w

f o r d

.

F o u r t e e n y e a r s a f

t e r C r a i g

, i n C r a w

f o r d v

. W a s h i n g t o n

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e i t e r a t e d

t h e c a t e g o r i c a l r i g h t o f

c o n f r o n t a t i o n t h a t i t h a d s e t o u t i n C o y

. J u s t i c e S c a l i a

, s p e a k i n g f o r

s e v e n m e m b e r s o f

t h e C o u r t

, c o n c l u d e d t h a t

, “ [ w ] h e r e t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s a r e a t i s s u e

,

3 1

t h e o n l y i n d i c i u m o f r e l i a b i l i t y s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f

y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e m a n d s i s t h e o n e t h e

C o n s t i t u t i o n a c t u a l l y p r e s c r i b e s : c o n f r o n t a t i o n

. ” T h e C o u r t o v e r r u l e d i t s p r i o r d e c i s i o n i n

3 2

R o b e r t s v

. O h i o

, w h i c h a l l o w e d a d m i s s i o n o f “ e x p a r t e t e s t i m o n y u p o n a m e r e f i n d i n g o f 3 3

r e l i a b i l i t y

, ” b e c a u s e t h a t “ m a l l e a b l e s t a n d a r d ” f a i l e d t o p r o t e c t a g a i n s t “ p a r a d i g m a t i c

c o n f r o n t a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s

. ” 3 4

g iven an a

ppropriate opportunity

for pr ior confr ontation and cr oss-examination). Cf. Stat e v.

Stock , 256 P.3d 899, 905 (Mont. 2011) (def endant’ s confr ontation rig hts under Crawf ord wer e not violated when six-y ear -old child testified via two-w ay closed-c ircuit television); People v

. Buie , 775 N.W.2d 817, 825-27 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (a pply ing Craig

to the issue of whe ther

expert testimony

g iven via two-w ay

interac tive technolog y

violated the def

endant’ s confr ontation

rig hts); State v. He nriod, 131 P.3d 232 (Utah 2006) ( reje cting the ar g ument that Crawf ord

implicitl y abrog ated Craig ); State v. Blanche tte , 134 P.3d 19, 29 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006) (sa me).

Chief J ustice Rehnquist wrote a concur ring opinion, in which J ustice O’Connor, the 3 1

author of Craig , joined. Chief J ustice Rehnquist found the “te stimoni al” vs. “ nontestimonial”

distinction hi storically

unfounded a

nd stated that he w as “not c onvinced that the Confr ontation

Clause ca teg orica lly

require s the exclusion of testimoni al statements” tha t had not been

previously

tested by the opportunity

for c ross-examination. Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 69-72

(Rehnquist, C.J ., concur

ring ).

Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 68-69. Jus tice Scalia, now speaking for the ma

jority in 3 2

Crawf ord , echoe d his dissent in Craig : “[T] he Confronta tion Cl ause doe s not gua rante e re liable

evidenc e; it gua

rante es spec ific trial proc edure s that were thought to assure reliable evidenc e, undeniably

among which wa s ‘fa ce- to-fac e’ c onfrontation.” Craig , 497 U.S. at 862 (Scalia, J.,

dissenting)

.

448 U.S. 56 (1980). 3 3

Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 60. 3 4Coronado Pag e 12

I n e x a m i n i n g t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e

, t h e C r a w f o r d C o u r t e x p l a i n e d

t h a t i t w a s b a s e d o n t h e E n g l i s h c o m m o n

- l a w t r a d i t i o n o f “ l i v e t e s t i m o n y i n c o u r t s u b j e c t t o

a d v e r s a r i a l t e s t i n g

. ” T h i s E n g l i s h s y s t e m w a s i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e E u r o p e a n c i v i l

- l a w s y s t e m 3 5

t h a t “ c o n d o n e [ d ] e x a m i n a t i o n i n p r i v a t e b y j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r s

. ” T h a t i s

, t h e E u r o p e a n

3 6

i n q u i s i t o r i a l s y s t e m a l l o w s f o r e x p a r t e q u e s t i o n i n g

, t h e u s e o f w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n s a n d a n s w e r s

,

a n d e x p a r t e d e p o s i t i o n s

. J u s t i c e S c a l i a n o t e d t h a t e v e n t h e e a r l i e s t A m e r i c a n d e c i s i o n s h e l d

t h a t d e p o s i t i o n s o r o t h e r p r i o r t e s t i m o n y c o u l d b e a d m i t t e d a g a i n s t a n a c c u s e d o n l y i f h e w a s

p r e s e n t a n d h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s

- e x a m i n e t h e w i t n e s s a t t h e t i m e t h e l i v e t e s t i m o n y

w a s g i v e n

. T h a t “ p r i o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s

- e x a m i n e ” i n p e r s o n i s b o t h a “ n e c e s s a r y ” a n d

3 7

“ d i s p o s i t i v e ” r e q u i r e m e n t f o r t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s u n d e r t h e

C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e

. J u s t i c e S c a l i a w a r n e d t h a t “ u n d e r n o c i r c u m s t a n c e s ” s h a l l t h e 3 8

d e f e n d a n t b e d e p r i v e d o f “ ‘ s e e i n g t h e w i t n e s s f a c e t o f a c e

, a n d

. . . s u b

j e c t i n g h i m t o t h e

o r d e a l o f c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. ’ ” 3 9

I n C r a w f o r d

, t h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t “ [ t ] h e t e x t o f t h e S i x t h A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t

s u g g e s t a n y o p e n

- e n d e d e x c e p t i o n s f r o m t h e c o n f

r o n t a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t t o b e d e v e l o p e d b y

Id. at 43. 3 5

Id. 3 6

Id. at 49. 3 7

Id. at 55. 3 8

Id. at 57 (quoting Mattox v. U nited States , 156 U.S. 237, 244 (1895)). 3 9Coronado Pag e 13

t h e c o u r t s

. ” S o c i a l p o l i c y

, p u b l i c p o l i c y

, e v e n g r a v e p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o f o b t a i n i n g t h e 4 0

w i t n e s s f o r t r i a l d o n o t t r u m p t h e c a t e g o r i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t

. R a t h e r

, u n d e r C r a w f o r d

, 4 1

A d m i t t i n g s t a t e m e n t s d e e m e d r e l i a b l e b y a j u d g e i s f u n d a m e n t a l l y a t o d d s w i t h

t h e r i g h t o f c o n f

r o n t a t i o n

. T o b e s u r e

, t h e C l a u s e ’ s u l t i m a t e g o a l i s t o e n s u r e

r e l i a b i l i t y o f e v i d e n c e

, b u t i t i s a p r o c e d u r a l r a t h e r t h a n a s u b s t a n t i v e

g u a r a n t e e

. I t c o m m a n d s

, n o t t h a t e v i d e n c e b e r e l i a b l e

, b u t t h a t r e l i a b i l i t y b e

a s s e s s e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r m a n n e r : b y t e s t i n g i n t h e c r u c i b l e o f c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n

. 4 2

T h e C r a w

f o r d C o u r t s t a t e d

, “ I t i s n o t e n o u g h t o p o i n t o u t t h a t m o s t o f t h e u s u a l s a f e g u a r d s

o f t h e a d v e r s a r y p r o c e s s a t t e n d t h e s t a t e m e n t

, w h e n t h e s i n g l e s a f e g u a r d m i s s i n g i s t h e o n e

t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e d e m a n d s

. ” T h u s

, w h e n t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s a r e a t i s s u e

, a n d 4 3

t h e d e c l a r a n t i s n o t m a k i n g t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s f r o m t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d a t t r i a l

, “ t h e S i x t h

A m e n d m e n t d e m a n d s w h a t t h e c o m m o n l a w r e q u i r e d : u n a v a i l a b i l i t y a n d a p r i o r o p p o r t u n i t y

f o r c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. ” 4 4

T h a t p r i o r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n m u s t s e r v e t h e s a m e f u n c t i o n a s i s

Id . at 54. 4 0

See B ullcoming v. New Me xico , 131 S.Ct . 2705, 2713, 2717-18 (2011) (holding that 4 1

Crawf ord require s the lab tec hnician who a ctually ran the lab tests to appea r and submit to

adver sarial c ross-examination in lieu of a more e asily available surrog ate witness; re jecting

sug g estion that an “unbe nding a pplication of the Confronta tion Cl ause” would impose an undue

burden on the prosec ution and concluding that the constitutional require ment “‘ma y not [ be]

disreg ard[ed] . . . at our conve nience ’”) (quoting Mele ndez-Diaz v . Massachusetts , 129 S.Ct

. 2527, 2540 (2009))

.

Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 61. 4 2

Id. at 65. 4 3

Id. at 68. 4 4Coronado Pag e 14

n o r m a l l y a c c o r d e d t o a d v e r s a r i a l c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n i n t h e c o u r t r o o m d u r i n g t r i a l :

C r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n i s t h e p r i n c i p a l m e a n s b y w h i c h t h e b e l i e v a b i l i t y o f a

w i t n e s s a n d t h e t r u t h o f h i s t e s t i m o n y a r e t e s t e d

. S u b j e c t a l w a y s t o t h e b r o a d

d i s c r e t i o n o f a t r i a l j u d g e t o p r e c l u d e r e p e t i t i v e a n d u n d u l y h a r a s s i n g

i n t e r r o g a t i o n

, t h e c r o s s

- e x a m i n e r i s n o t o n l y p e r m i t t e d t o d e l v e i n t o t h e

w i t n e s s ’ s t o r y t o t e s t t h e w i t n e s s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s a n d m e m o r y

, b u t t h e c r o s s

e x a m i n e r h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e e n a l l o w e d t o i m p e a c h

, i

. e

. , d i s c r e d i t

, t h e w i t n e s s

.

. . . [ T ] h e e x p o s u r e o f a w i t n e s s ’ m o t i v a t i o n i n t e s t i f y i n g i s a p r o p e r a n d

i m p o r t a n t f

u n c t i o n o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t o f c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n

. 4 5

C

. T e s t i m o n i a l S t a t e m e n t s u n d e r C r a w f o r d a n d i t s P r o g e n y

.

T h e q u e s t i o n t h e n b e c a m e

, “ W h a t o u t

- o f

- c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s a r e ‘ t e s t i m o n i a l ’ f o r

p u r p o s e s o f t h e r i g h t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n ? ” I n C r a w

f o r d

, t h e C o u r t d i d n o t f u l l y r e s o l v e t h a t

i s s u e

, r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e s o m e “ i n t e r i m u n c e r t a i n t y ” i n t e r p r e t i n g a n d a p p l y i n g

t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t e s t i m o n i a l a n d n o n t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s

. T w o y e a r s l a t e r

, i n 4 6

D a v i s v

. W

a s h i n g t o n

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t e l a b o r a t e d o n t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n :

4 7

S t a t e m e n t s a r e n o n t e s t i m o n i a l w h e n m a d e i n t h e c o u r s e o f p o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t i o n

u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o b j e c t i v e l y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f t h e

i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s t o e n a b l e p o l i c e a s s i s t a n c e t o m e e t a n o n g o i n g e m e r g e n c y

.
T h e y a r e t e s t i m o n i a l w h e n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o b j e c t i v e l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s

n o s u c h o n g o i n g e m e r g e n c y

, a n d t h a t t h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n

i s t o e s t a b l i s h o r p r o v e p a s t e v e n t s p o t e n t i a l l y r e l e v a n t t o l a t e r c r i m i n a l

p r o s e c u t i o n

. 4 8

Davis v. Alask

a , 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974). 4 5

Crawf ord, 541 U.S. at 68 n.10. 4 6

547 U.S. 813 (2006). 4 7

Id. at 822. 4 8Coronado Pag e 15

U n d e r D a v i s

, ( a s w e l l a s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s m o r e r e c e n t c o n f r o n t a t i o n d e c i s i o n

,

M i c h i g a n v

. B r y a n t ) t h e p r i m a r y f

o c u s i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a n o u t

- o f

- c o u r t s t a t e m e n t 4 9

i s “ t e s t i m o n i a l ” i s o n t h e o b j e c t i v e p u r p o s e o f t h e i n t e r v i e w o r i n t e r r o g a t i o n

, n o t o n t h e

d e c l a r a n t ’ s e x p e c t a t i o n s

. I f t h e o b j e c t i v e p u r p o s e o f

t h e i n t e r v i e w i s t o q u e s t i o n a p e r s o n 5 0

a b o u t p a s t e v e n t s a n d t h a t p e r s o n ’ s s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h o s e p a s t e v e n t s w o u l d l i k e l y b e

r e l e v a n t t o a f

u t u r e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g

, t h e n t h e y a r e t e s t i m o n i a l

. 5 1

D

. C h i l d

- A b u s e F o r e n s i c I n t e r v i e w S t a t e m e n t s a n d V i d e o t a p e s A r e T e s t i m o n i a l a n d

A r e I n a d m i s s i b l e U n l e s s t h e C h i l d T e s t i f i e s o r t h e D e f

e n d a n t H a d a P r i o r

O p p o r t u n i t y t o C r o s s

- E x a m i n e t h e C h i l d

.

V i r t u a l l y a l l c o u r t s t h a t h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f f o r e n s i c c h i l d

- i n t e r v i e w

s t a t e m e n t s o r v i d e o t a p e s a f t e r t h e D a v i s d e c i s i o n h a v e f o u n d t h e m t o b e “ t e s t i m o n i a l ” a n d

131 S.Ct . 1143 (2011). 4 9

Davis , 547 U.S. at 822. I n Bryant , the Supreme Court stre ssed that cour ts, in 5 0

deter mining the “ primary

purpose” of the interr og ation or interview , must view the

circ umstances f

rom an objec tive point of view:

An objective a

naly sis of the circ umstances of an enc ounter a

nd the statements and

actions of the pa

rties to it provides the most acc urate assessment of the “primar y purpose of

the interrog ation.” The circ umstances in which a n encounte r occ urs—

e.g., at or ne ar the scene of the c rime ver sus at a police sta tion, during a n ong oing

emer g ency

or af terwa rds—ar e cle arly

matters of obje ctive fa ct. The state ments

and ac tions of the parties must also be objec tively evalua ted. That is, the re levant

inquiry is not the subjective or a ctual purpose of the individuals involved in a

particula r enc ounter, but ra ther the pur pose that re asonable participa nts would

have ha d, as asc erta ined from the individuals’ state ments and ac tions and the

circ umstances in which the encounte r occ urre d.

131 S.Ct . at 1156.

Davis , 547 U.S. at 822; see State v . Arnold , 933 N.E.2d 775, 784 (Ohio 2010) (child- 5 1

rape victim’s videotaped state ments to interviewer s at child-advoc acy cente r that ser

ved

primarily a for ensic or inve stiga tive purpose we re te stimoni al, and their admission at trial

violated def

endant’ s confr ontation rig hts when child did not testify at trial).Coronado Pag e 16

i n a d m i s s i b l e u n l e s s t h e c h i l d t e s t i f i e s a t t r i a l o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t h a d a p r i o r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r

c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. I n d e e d

, i n t h i s c a s e

, t h e S t a t e d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h a t R

. D

. ’ s s t a t e m e n t s

, 5 2

m a d e d u r i n g h e r t w o i n t e r v i e w s a t T h e B r i d g e C h i l d r e n ’ s A d v o c a c y C e n t e r

, w e r e t e s t i m o n i a l

,

a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s e x p l i c i t l y h e l d t h a t t h e y w e r e t e s t i m o n i a l

. 5 3

See, e .g.

, Bobadilla v. Carlson , 575 F.3d 785, 791- 93 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding , on 5 2

defe ndant’s fe dera l writ of habe as cor pus, that state supreme court made an “unr easona ble

application of f

eder al law” under Crawf

ord in concluding that child’s videotape d statement to

social worke r in sex-abuse ca se wa s admissible when child did not testify at trial and de fenda

nt

had no opportunity

to cross-e x amine child; af firming district court’s ruling g ranting habea s

relief ); State v. Contreras , 979 So.2d 896, 905-12 (Fla . 2008) (ha rmful error to admit childvictim’s videotaped state ment to child-abuse c oordinator whe n child was de clar ed unava ilable

for tria l and def

ense c ounsel’s discover

y deposition of child did not affor d defe ndant suffic ient

opportunity

for c ross-examination); State v. Hoope r , 176 P.3d 911, 917-18 (I daho 2007) ( holding

that videotaped sta tements the child victim made to nurse during interview a t a sexual-trauma

abuse- response cente r we re te stimoni al bec ause the circ umstances surr ounding the interview

indicated that the pr imary purpose of

the interviewwas to establish past eve nts potentially

rele vant to later c riminal prosec ution as opposed to meeting the child’s medica l needs; re versible

err or to admit them when c hild did not t estify at trial and de fenda

nt had no prior oppor

tunity for

cross-e x amination); State v. He nderson , 160 P.3d 776, 785-93 (Kan. 2007) (re versible e rror to

admit three- y ear -old child’s videotape d statement to social wor ker ta ken at g overnme nt fac ility to

g ather evidenc e ag ainst alleg ed per petra tor when c hild did not t estify at trial and de fenda

nt did

not have pr ior opportunity to cross-e x amine); State v. Justus, 205 S.W .3d 872, 880-81 (Mo.

2006) (while soc ial worke r’s job wa s to protect child, “pr imary purpose” of videotape d

statements was to e stablish past events; reve rsible er ror to admit four- y ear -old child’s videotape d

interview w hen def

endant did not have opportunity to cross-e x amine her ); State v. Blue, 717

N.W.2d 558, 564-67 (N.D. 2006) (videotape d statement to fore nsic interviewe r at c hild advocac y

cente r inadmissible beca

use def endant did not have opportunity to cross-e x amine; irre levant that

trial judg e found the child’s statement re liable and trustwor thy beca use Confrontation Clause

require s cross-e x amination); State v. Pitt , 147 P.3d 940, 943-46 (Or. Ct. App. 2006) ( reve rsible

err or to admit “testimonial” videotape d statements made by two children to socia l worker at

child-abuse assessment ce nter whe n children did not testify at trial); In re S.R., 920 A.2d 1262,

1266-69 (Pa. Super . Ct. 2007) (reve rsible er ror to admit videotape of four -y ear -old child’s

statement to fore nsic DHS interviewe r for the purpose of

investiga tion and possible prosecution

when c hild did not t estify at juvenile’s a djudication hear ing)

.

Coronado , 310 S.W .3d at 163. The c ourt explained: 5 3

Her e, the pr imary

purpose of

the Aug ust 8th int ervie w was to pre serve a re cord of

past fac ts or events for

purposes of a

later c riminal prosec ution and the purpose ofCoronado Pag e 17

1

. A p r i o r o

p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s

- e x a m i n e m e a n s a n o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f u l l p e r s o n a l

a d v e r s a r i a l c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, i n c l u d i n g a t t a c k s o n c r e d i b i l i t

y

.

T h e r e f o r e

, t h e C o n f

r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e q u e s t i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r a p p e l l a n t h a d “ a

p r i o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s

- e x a m i n e ” R

. D

. , a s i s r e q u i r e d u n d e r C r a w f o r d

. T h e c o u r t o f

a p p e a l s q u i t e a p p r o p r i a t e l y c i t e d D a v i s v

. A l a s k a f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r i g h t o f 5 4

c o n f r o n t a t i o n i n c l u d e s “ n o t o n l y t h e r i g h t t o f a c e

- t o

- f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n

, b u t a l s o t h e r i g h t t o

m e a n i n g f

u l a n d e f f e c t i v e c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. ” A n d t h e c o u r t a p t l y c i t e d D e a n W i g m o r e

, 5 5

w h o h a d e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e “ ‘ m a i n a n d e s s e n t i a l p u r p o s e ’ ” o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n i s “ t h e

o p p o r t u n i t y f

o r c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n t h r o u g h t h e p r o c e s s o f p u t t i n g d i r e c t a n d p e r s o n a l

q u e s t i o n s t o t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e o b t a i n i n g o f i m m e d i a t e a n s w e r s

. ” 5 6

I n d e e d

, i t i s t h a t p e r s o n a l p r e s e n c e o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a n d t h e r i g h t t o a s k p r o b i n g

,

a d v e r s a r i a l c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n q u e s t i o n s t h a t l i e s a t t h e c o r e o f a n A m e r i c a n c r i m i n a l t r i a l ’ s

t r u t h

- s e e k i n g f

u n c t i o n

. A s t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a v

. G r e e n

, a 1 9 7 0 5 7

C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e c a s e

, t h e r i g h t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n f

o r c e s t h e w i t n e s s t o s u b m i t t o c r o s s

the follow up interview

was to comply

with the require ments of ar ticle 38.071 for

the admissibilit y

of that orig inal rec ording during that prosec ution. The ac cura cy

and truthfulness of

R.D.’s statements we re c rucia l to the State’s case ag ainst

Appellant. I n both situations, R .D.’s stateme nts clear ly constitute testimonial

hear say for Confr ontation Clause purposes.

Id.

415 U.S. 308 (1974).

5 4

Coronado , 310 S.W .3d at 162. 5 5

Id. (citing 5 J O H N W I G M O R E

, E V I D E N C E § 1395, at 123 (3d e d. 1940)). 5 6

399 U.S. 149 (1970). 5 7Coronado Pag e 18

e x a m i n a t i o n

, t h e “ ‘ g r e a t e s t l e g a l e n g i n e e v e r i n v e n t e d f o r t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t r u t h

. ’ ” 5 8

O v e r o n e h u n d r e d y e a r s a g o

, D e a n W i g m o r e w a x e d e l o q u e n t o v e r t h e s p e c i a l s a n c t i t y

o f c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n i n t h e A m e r i c a n s y s t e m o f j u s t i c e : “ [ C ] r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, n o t t r i a l b y

j u r y

, i s t h e g r e a t a n d p e r m a n e n t c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e A n g l o

- A m e r i c a n s y s t e m o f l a w t o

i m p r o v e d m e t h o d s o f t r i a l p r o c e d u r e

. ” A n d t h a t r i g h t o f p e r s o n a l a n d o p e n c r o s s

5 9

e x a m i n a t i o n h a d b e e n w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n E n g l i s h c o m m o n l a w

. A c c o r d i n g t o S i r M a t t h e w

H a l e i n 1 6 8 0

, “ b y t h i s c o u r s e o f p e r s o n a l a n d o p e n e x a m i n a t i o n

, t h e r e i s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a l l

p e r s o n s c o n c e r n e d

, v i z

. t h e j u d g e

, o r a n y o f t h e j u r y

, o r p a r t i e s

, o r t h e i r c o u n c i l o r a t t o r n i e s

,

t o p r o p o u n d o c c a s i o n a l q u e s t i o n s

, w h i c h b e a t s a n d b o u l t s o u t t h e t r u t h m u c h b e t t e r t h a n w h e n

t h e w i t n e s s o n l y d e l i v e r s a f o r m a l s e r i e s o f h i s k n o w l e d g e w i t h o u t b e i n g i n t e r r o g a t e d

. ” O n e 6 0

i m p o r t a n t o b

j e c t i v e o f c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n i s t o t e s t t h e v e r a c i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s

, “ [ b ] u t e v e n

w h e n a l l s u s p i c i o n o f v e r a c i t y i s s u p p o s e d t o b e o u t o f t h e q u e s t i o n

, h o w v e r y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y

i s t h e ‘ e x p a r t e ’ a c c o u n t o f a w i t n e s s t a k e n u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y

h a d n o t a f

a i r o p p o r t u n i t y o f c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. ” 6 1

C r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n m e a n s

[ t ] h e q u e s t i o n i n g o f a w i t n e s s u p o n a t r i a l o r h e a r i n g b y t h e p a r t y o p p o s e d t o

t h e p a r t y w h o c a l l e d t h e w i t n e s s t o t e s t i f y

. T h e p u r p o s e o f c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

Id. at 158 (quoting 5 J O H N W I G M O R E

, E V I D E N C E § 1367 (3d ed. 1940) ). 5 8

2 J O H N W I G M O R E

, W I G M O R E O N E V I D E N C E § 1367 at 1698 (1904). 5 9

Id. (quoting S I R M A T T H E W H A L E

, H I S T O R Y O F T H E C O M M O N L A W ch. 12 (1680) ). 6 0

Id. (quoting 2 W.D. E V A N S

, N O T E S T O P O T H I E R , 198 (1806))

. 6 1Coronado Pag e 19

i s t o d i s c r e d i t a w i t n e s s b e f o r e t h e f a c t f i n d e r i n a n y o f s e v e r a l w a y s

, a s b y

b r i n g i n g o u t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a n d i m p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n e a r l i e r t e s t i m o n y

, b y

s u g g e s t i n g d o u b t s t o t h e w i t n e s s

, a n d b y t r a p p i n g t h e w i t n e s s i n t o a d m i s s i o n s

t h a t w e a k e n t h e t e s t i m o n y

. 6 2

I t i s a n e x a m i n a t i o n b y t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y

, n o t a “ n e u t r a l ” i n t e r v i e w e r

. I t o c c u r s i n t h e

f o r m a l s e t t i n g

– a t r i a l o r a h e a r i n g

. F i r s t t h e w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e s

. T h e n

, c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n 6 3

f o l l o w s u p o n i t s h e e l s

. T h e c r o s s

- e x a m i n e r m a y d i s c r e d i t t h e w i t n e s s ’ s d i r e c t t e s t i m o n y i n 6 4

s e v e r a l d i f

f e r e n t w a y s

, d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e w i t n e s s

, t h e q u e s t i o n e r

, a n d t h e s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n

a s i t u n f o l d s i n t h e h e a r i n g

. B o t h t h e f e d e r a l a n d T e x a s h e a r s a y r u l e s a p p l y t o p r i o r o u t

- o f

c o u r t s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y a t e s t i f y i n g w i t n e s s

. T h e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s r u l e i s t h a t a d e f

e r r e d 6 5

o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s

- e x a m i n e i s t h o u g h t t o b e d i s t i n c t l y i n f e r i o r t o c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n :

B L A C K ’ S L A W D I C T I O N A R Y 433 (9 ed. 2009). 6 2 t h

See M attox v. United States , 156 U.S. 237, 244 (1895) (holding that it did not vi olate 6 3

the Six th Amendment rig ht of confr ontation when a de cea sed witness’s prior testimony

from an

ear lier trial wa s rea d in a sec ond trial of the sa me matter be cause the def endant ha d the

opportunity

to conduct a f

ull cross-examination in the first trial; “The substanc e of the

constitutional protection is preser ved to the prisoner

in the advanta g e he ha s once ha d of see ing

the witness fa ce to f

ace , and of subjec ting him to the orde al of a cross-e x amination. This, the law

say s, he shall under

no circ umstances be deprive d of[.] ”).

W I G M O R E , supra note 59, § 1369, at 1709; see also Hughe s v. State , 385 So.2d 1010, 6 4

1014 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980).

F E D

. R. E V I D . 801(d)( 1) advisory committee’s note ( noting that “ [t ]he positi on taken by 6 5

the Advisory

Commi ttee in formulating this part of the rule is founded upon an unw illingness to

countena nce the g ener al use of pr ior prepa red state ments as substantive evidenc e”) ; 1 R O Y R.

RA Y

, T E X A S P R A C T I C E : T E X A S L A W O F E V I D E N C E C I V I L A N D C R I M I N A L § 785, at 12 (3d e d.

1980) (stating that “[t] he hea rsay rule a pplies even to e vidence of pre vious statements made by

the witness himself.”)

.Coronado Pag e 20

T h e c h i e f m e r i t o f c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n i s n o t t h a t a t s o m e f u t u r e t i m e i t g i v e s t h e

p a r t y o p p o n e n t t h e r i g h t t o d i s s e c t a d v e r s e t e s t i m o n y

. I t s p r i n c i p a l v i r t u e i s i n

i t s i m m e d i a t e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t e s t i n g p r o c e s s

. I t s s t r o k e s f a l l w h i l e t h e i r o n

i s h o t

. F a l s e t e s t i m o n y i s a p t t o h a r d e n a n d b e c o m e u n y i e l d i n g t o t h e b l o w s o f

t r u t h i n p r o p o r t i o n a s t h e w i t n e s s h a s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d

i n f l u e n c e b y t h e s u g g e s t i o n s o f o t h e r s

, w h o s e i n t e r e s t m a y b e

, a n d o f t e n i s

, t o

m a i n t a i n f

a l s e h o o d r a t h e r t h a n t r u t h

. 6 6

M a n y o f t h e p o s t

- C r a w f o r d c h i l d

- a b u s e v i d e o t a p e c a s e s t h a t h a v e b e e n r e v e r s e d

i n v o l v e d s t a t u t o r y o r j u d i c i a l p r o c e d u r e s t h a t a l l o w e d t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t e s t i m o n i a l h e a r s a y

s t a t e m e n t s w i t h o u t a n y c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n o r a n i n s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y f

o r c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n

. F o r e x a m p l e

, i n S t a t e v

. C o n t r e r a s

, t h e F l o r i d a S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e

6 7 6 8

s t a t e ’ s s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s r e g a r d i n g d i s c o v e r y d e p o s i t i o n s p r o v i d e d a n i n a d e q u a t e

o p p o r t u n i t y f

o r c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n b e c a u s e

, i n t e r a l i a

, t h e y m a y b e t a k e n w i t h o u t t h e

State v. Saporen , 285 N.W. 898, 901 (Minn. 1939). Dea n Wigmore, on the other ha nd, 6 6

once a dvocate d this posit ion but “on further ref lection re jected it whe n the witness appe are d and

persona lly

testified at the tria l”:

[T] he theor

y of the He arsa

y rule is that an e x trajudicial stateme nt is rejecte d

beca use it was made out of Court by an abse nt person not subject to cr ossexamination. . . . Here, how ever , by hy pothesis the witness is present a nd subject

to cross-e x amination. There is ample opportunity to test him as to the basis for

his former sta tement. The w hole purpose of the Hea rsay rule ha s alrea dy

been

satisfied. He nce the re is nothing to preve nt the tribunal from g iving suc h

testimonial credit to the extrajudicial statement as it may seem to dese rve.

2 J O H N W I G M O R E

, A T R E A T I S E O N T H E S Y S T E M O F E V I D E N C E I N T R I A L S A T C O M M O N L A W §

1018 (2d ed. 1923) . And that is the position of the Supreme Court conc erning the Confrontation

Clause: As long as the witness take s the stand at trial a nd is subject to in-court adve rsar ial crossexamination, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied. Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 59 (“F inally , we

reiter ate that, whe n the dec lara nt appea rs for c ross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause

place s no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.”).

See note 52 supra. 6 7

979 So.2d 896 (Fla. 2008)

. 6 8Coronado Pag e 21

d e f e n d a n t ’ s p e r s o n a l p r e s e n c e

. T h e s e d e p o s i t i o n s d o “ n o t f u n c t i o n a s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e

c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t y e n v i s i o n e d b y C r a w f o r d

. ” I n d e e d

, e v e n i n W i g m o r e ’ s d a y

, 6 9

d e p o s i t i o n s d i d n o t p r o v i d e a s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y f

o r c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n u n l e s s t h e y w e r e

t a k e n i n “ a f

o r m a l p r o c e e d i n g g o v e r n e d b y a s e t t l e d p r o c e d u r e a n d e n f o r c e d b y v e s t e d

a u t h o r i t y

. ” I n f

o r m a l i n t e r v i e w s

, w h e t h e r t r a n s c r i b e d o r r e c o r d e d

, d o n o t p r o v i d e t h e 7 0

a p p r o p r i a t e s o l e m n i t y t o q u a l i f y a s a n o p p o r t u n i t y f

o r f o r m a l c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. A n d e x 7 1

p a r t e d e p o s i t i o n s a r e s t r i c t l y i n a d m i s s i b l e ; “ [ t ] h i s i s u n i v e r s a l l y c o n c e d e d a s a c o m m o n

- l a w

p r i n c i p l e

. ” 7 2

S i m i l a r l y

, i n P e o

p l e v

. F r y

, t h e C o l o r a d o S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t e s t i m o n y t a k e n 7 3

a t a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g

– h e a r i n g s t h a t a r e u s u a l l y r e s t r i c t e d t o a n a s s e s s m e n t o f p r o b a b l e

c a u s e a n d l i m i t t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t o f c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n o n c r e d i b i l i t y i s s u e s

– i s n o t

a d m i s s i b l e a t t r i a l

. T h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g d o e s “ n o t p r o v i d e a n a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y t o

c r o s s

- e x a m i n e s u f

f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f

y t h e C o n f

r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e r e q u i r e m e n t s

. ” 7 4

Id. at 910. 6 9

W I G M O R E

, supra note 59, § 1376, at 1715. 7 0

Id. 7 1

Id. , § 1377, at 1716. 7 2

92 P.3d 970 (Colo. 2004). 7 3

Id. at 978. The Colora do Supreme Court explained, 7 4

This case exemplifies the dang ers of admitting pre liminary

hear ing te stimony

as

evidenc e at tria l when the witness is unava ilable. [The dece ased vic tim] made

sever al statements incr iminating F ry at the pre liminary

hear ing. A lthough [the

victim’s] cre dibilit y

was fa ctually

subject to attac k, cre dibilit y deter minations are

not allowed at pr eliminary hear ings. Thus, [the victim’s] t estimony could not be

subjected to the pr ocedur al rig ors re quired by the Confrontation Clause a t theCoronado Pag e 22

2

. E x p a r t e s u b m i s s i o n o

f w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s d o e s n o t q u a l i f y a s c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

.

T h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t i t “ h a s a n i m p o r t a n t p u b l i c p o l i c y i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e

p h y s i c a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l w e l l

- b e i n g o f c h i l d r e n a n d

, i n p a r t i c u l a r

, c h i l d a b u s e v i c t i m s

. ” 7 5

T h e r e f o r e

, a r g u e s t h e S t a t e

, t h e t r i a l c o u r t w a s “ j u s t i f i e d i n r e q u i r i n g c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n b y

w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s f o r t h e s a f e t y a n d p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e c h i l d

. ” A l t h o u g h t h e S t a t e a r g u e s 7 6

t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d b e m o r e f l e x i b i l i t y i n c h i l d

- a b u s e c a s e s

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s r e j e c t e d t h e

n o t i o n t h a t t h e r e s h o u l d b e m o r e f l e x i b i l i t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e i n c e r t a i n

t y p e s o f c a s e s

, s u c h a s d o m e s t i c

- a b u s e p r o s e c u t i o n s

. I n D a v i s

, J u s t i c e S c a l i a s a i d :

R e s p o n d e n t s i n b o t h c a s e s [ D a v i s a n d H a m m o n ]

, j o i n e d b y a n u m b e r o f t h e i r

a m i c i

, c o n t e n d t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d i n t h e s e t w o

c a s e s

– d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e

– r e q u i r e s g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e u s e o f t e s t i m o n i a l

e v i d e n c e

. T h i s p a r t i c u l a r t y p e o f c r i m e i s n o t o r i o u s l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o

i n t i m i d a t i o n o r c o e r c i o n o f t h e v i c t i m t o e n s u r e t h a t s h e d o e s n o t t e s t i f y a t t r i a l

. W h e n t h i s o c c u r s

, t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e g i v e s t h e c r i m i n a l a w i n d f a l l

. W e

m a y n o t

, h o w e v e r

, v i t i a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s w h e n t h e y h a v e t h e e f f e c t

preliminary

hear ing. Mor eover , the trial cour t further allowed the te stimony

to

skirt the proce dural saf

eg uards of

the Confrontation Clause by allowing the

testimony to be re ad aloud a t trial, by a police of

fice r, without the opportunity for

immediate re buttal. The testimony was ther efor e neve r subject to dire ct attac k.

The proc ess employ ed in this case illustrates howdispensing w ith an adequate

opportunity

for c ross-examination impedes a de fenda nt from having

a prope r

chanc e to re but the evidenc e ag ainst him.

Id. at 979 (c itation omit ted). Cf. Stat e v. M antz , 222 P.3d 471, 478 (I daho Ct. App. 2009)

(holding that prior testimony from a pr eliminary

hear ing ma

y be admissible under Crawf ord if it

is “‘g iven under

circ umstances c losely

approximating those that surr ound the ty pical trial’” ; noting that “ [c] ircumstance s approximating trial include w itness testimony under oa th,

repr esenta tion by

counsel, a

n opportunity

to cross-e x amine the witness, a nd the proc eeding s

conducte d befor e a judicia l tribunal capa ble of providing a judicial re cord of the proc eeding s.”)

(quoting Calif

ornia v. Gree n , 399 U.S. 149, 165 (1970)).

State’s B rief a

t 9. 7 5

Id. 7 6Coronado Pag e 23

o f a l l o w i n g t h e g u i l t y t o g o f r e e

. 7 7

T h e c o n t e n t o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n d o n o t d e p e n d

u p o n t h e t y p e o f c r i m e c h a r g e d o r t h e f r a g i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s ; a l l a c c u s e d c i t i z e n s a r e

e n t i t l e d t o t h e f

u l l p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n

.

F u r t h e r m o r e

, t h e C r a w f o r d d e c i s i o n m a d e c l e a r t h a t d i r e c t a n d p e r s o n a l c r o s s

e x a m i n a t i o n

, w i t h c o u n s e l ’ s a b i l i t y t o a s k f o l l o w

- u p q u e s t i o n s

, i s e s s e n t i a l “ t o t e a s e o u t t h e

t r u t h ” a t t r i a l

. T h u s

, t h e C r a w f o r d C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t d e p o s i t i o n s o r o t h e r p r i o r t e s t i m o n y 7 8

c o u l d b e a d m i t t e d a g a i n s t a n a c c u s e d o n l y i f h e w a s p r e s e n t a n d h a d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c r o s s

e x a m i n e d u r i n g t h a t d e p o s i t i o n o r p r i o r t e s t i m o n y

. A n d

, i n r i n g i n g t e r m s

, t h e S u p r e m e 7 9

C o u r t d e c l a r e d t h a t

, “ ‘ u n d e r n o c i r c u m s t a n c e s ’ ” s h a l l t h e d e f e n d a n t b e d e p r i v e d o f “ ‘ s e e i n g

t h e w i t n e s s f

a c e t o f a c e

, a n d

. . . s u b

j e c t i n g h i m t o t h e o r d e a l o f a c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. ’ ” I n 8 0

t h e c o n t e x t o f b a t t e r e d w o m e n

, s m a l l c h i l d r e n

, a n d o t h e r f r a g i l e w i t n e s s e s

, t h i s i s a h e a v y

p r i c e t o p a y

, b u t i t i s t h e p r i c e t h a t o u r c o n s t i t u t i o n a n d o u r S u p r e m e C o u r t r e q u i r e s

. T h e r e

i s n o “ b a l a n c i n g ” t h e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

a g a i n s t o t h e r s o c i a l p o l i c i e s

, e v e n c o m p e l l i n g o n e s

.

I I I

.

T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s i n t h i s c a s e

, w i t h o u t c i t i n g t o a n y o f t h e C r a w f o r d l i n e o f c a s e s

,

Davis , 547 U.S. at 832-33. 7 7

Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 67. 7 8

Id. at 49. 7 9

Id. at 57 (quoting Mattox v. U nited States , 156 U.S. 237, 244 (1895)). 8 0Coronado Pag e 24

c o n c l u d e d t h a t w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s

, p r o p o u n d e d b y a f o r e n s i c c h i l d

- s e x u a l

- a b u s e e x a m i n e r

s o m e f i f t e e n m o n t h s a f

t e r t h e c h i l d ’ s i n i t i a l v i d e o t a p e d i n t e r v i e w t h a t t h e S t a t e w i s h e d t o

i n t r o d u c e

, w e r e a s u f

f i c i e n t s u b s t i t u t e f

o r l i v e

, a d v e r s a r i a l c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n t o s a t i s f y a

d e f e n d a n t ’ s r i g h t t o c o n f

r o n t a t i o n

. B u t w e a r e “ n o t f r e e t o c o n d u c t a c o s t

- b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s 8 1

o f c l e a r a n d e x p l i c i t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s

, a n d t h e n t o a d j u s t t h e i r m e a n i n g t o c o m p o r t

w i t h o u r f

i n d i n g s

. ” C r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n m e a n s p e r s o n a l

, l i v e

, a d v e r s a r i a l q u e s t i o n i n g i n a

8 2

f o r m a l s e t t i n g

. I t c a n n o t h a v e o n e m e a n i n g f o r s o m e w i t n e s s e s a n d a n o t h e r m e a n i n g f o r

o t h e r s

.

W e a r e u n a b l e t o f i n d a n y p o s t

- C r a w

f o r d p r e c e d e n t f

r o m a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t s t a t e s

,

o r e v e n s u g g e s t s

, t h a t a l i s t o f w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s

, p o s e d b y a f o r e n s i c e x a m i n e r t o a c h i l d

i n a n e x p a r t e i n t e r v i e w

, i s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s u b s t i t u t e f o r l i v e c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n a n d

c o n f r o n t a t i o n

. H a d h e b e e n f o r c e d t o a c c e p t s u c h a p a l l i d s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e r e a l t h i n g

, S i r 8 3

Coronado, 310 S.W .3d at 164-65 (“ I n an attempt to find a suitable solution to this 8 1

Hobson’s choic e, while a t the same time providing a mea ningf ul compromise betwe en the

defe ndant’s rig ht of confr ontation and society ’s intere st in protecting y oung child victims from

additional trauma oc casione d by placing them within the cruc ible of conf rontation and c rossexamination in a courtroom setting , we f ind that the proce dures g overne d by section 2(b) of

article 38.071 can be an appr opriate c onstitut ional acc ommodation.”).

Maryland v. Craig , 497 U.S. 836, 870 (1990) (Sca lia, J ., dissenting) ; see also Giles v

. 8 2

Calif ornia , 554 U.S. 353, 375-76 (2008) ( “[T] he g uara ntee of confr ontation is no gua

rante e at a ll

if it is subj ect to wha tever exceptions courts from time to time consider ‘ fair.’ I t is not t he role of

courts to extrapolate fr om the words of the Six th Amendment to the values be hind it, and then to

enfor ce its g uara

ntees only

to the extent they

serve (in the cour

ts’ views) those unde rly ing va lues.

The Six th Amendment see ks fairne ss indeed–but see ks it through ve ry specific means (one of

which is confr ontation) that wer e the tria l rig hts of Eng lishmen. I t ‘does not sug g est anyopenended e x ceptions fr om the confr ontation require ment to be deve loped by the cour ts.’”) ( quoting

Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 54).

There has bee n at least one post- Crawf ord case in which a pro se defe ndant’s rig ht to 8 3

persona lly

cross-e x amine a vic tim-witness has been c urtailed by requiring stand-by

co-c ounsel toCoronado Pag e 25

W a l t e r R a l e i g h w o u l d o n c e m o r e r a t t l e h i s c h a i n s a n d c r y o u t f r o m t h e S t a r C h a m b e r

, “ [ L ] e t

C o b h a m b e h e r e

, l e t h i m s p e a k i t

. C a l l m y a c c u s e r b e f o r e m y f a c e [

. ] ” A f

e w w r i t t e n 8 4

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s s e n t o f

f t o t h e T o w e r f

o r t h e w a r d e n t o a s k L o r d C o b h a m i n h i s c e l l w o u l d

n o t s a t i s f y S i r W a l t e r o r t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e h i s t r i a l e n g e n d e r e d

.

T h e e x p a r t e “ w r i t t e n i n t e r r o g a t o r y ” p r o c e d u r e u s e d i n t h i s c a s e w o u l d n o t p a s s m u s t e r

u n d e r C r a i g

, t h e v e r y c a s e t h a t t h e S t a t e a n d t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e l i e d u p o n

. I n C r a i g

, t h e

m a j o r i t y h e l d t h a t t h e r i g h t o f c o n f r o n t a t i o n w a s n o t u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y g o u g e d b e c a u s e e v e r y

o t h e r a s p e c t o f t h e r i g h t t o c o n f r o n t a t i o n e x c e p t f

a c e

- t o

- f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n i n t h e c o u r t r o o m

w a s g i v e n f

u l l f o r c e

. C r a i g d i d r e q u i r e t h a t t h e c h i l d t e s t i f y u n d e r o a t h

, b e s u b

j e c t t o f u l l 8 5

ask the de fenda

nt’s cross-e x amination questions when it appea red likely that he would intimidate

or terr orize the witness on the witness stand. At issue wa s the constitutional right of se lfrepr esenta tion, not the right of c onfrontation. See, e .g., Partin v. Commonwealth , 168 S.W .3d

23, 27-29 (Ky . 2005) (noting that “[c]ross-examination can be used to a ttack the human

components of the pr osecution’s c ase- in-chief throug h intimi dation. I n cer tain case s, the

intimi dation of the witness during cross-e x amination and the tac tical adva ntag e g ained by

it may

exceed what the Constit ution and fundame ntal fairne ss in the adver sarial pr ocess r equire ”; the

trial court’ s decision to require standby counsel to ac tually

pose the que stions to t he victims was

not an abuse of discre tion and did not violate defe ndant’s rig ht of self-r epre sentation). Tha t is a

very differ ent situation from one in which the defe ndant’s counse l cannot per sonallycrossexamine the witness.

Crawf ord , 541 U.S. at 44 (quoting Raleigh’s Case , 2 How. St. Tr. 1, 15-16 (1603) ). 8 4

497 U.S. at 851. I ndeed, in Romero v . State , 173 S.W .3d 502, 505 (Tex. Crim. App. 8 5

2005), a c ase in whic h we he ld that the defe ndant’s conf rontation rig hts were violated, the

witness wore a disg uise while he w as testify ing live in the c ourtroom. I n that case , two

confr ontation rig hts were g oug ed: fa ce- to-fac e conf rontation plus an inability to fully assess the

witness’s demea

nor bec ause of

his baseball ca

p, dark g lasses, and turne d-up collar . We

conclude d that this procedur e did not comport with Craig ’s mandate that, even if fac e-to-f ace

confr ontation is denied, the re liability of the testimony

is otherwise a ssured. We explained the

importance of the re maining c onfrontation rig hts that were not goug ed in Craig :

Whether the re liability

of the testimony

is otherwise a ssured turns upon the e x tent

to which the proc eeding s respe ct the four elements of c onfrontation: phy sical

prese nce, oa

th, cross-e x amination, and obser vation of deme anor by

the trier of

fac t. I n Maryland v. Craig , the Supreme Court found suf ficient a ssuranc e ofCoronado Pag e 26

c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, a n d b e o b s e r v e d b y t h e j u d g e

, j u r y

, a n d d e f e n d a n t

d u r i n g t h a t t e s t i m o n y

. T h e o n l y r e a s o n t h a t t h e c l o s e d

- c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n p r o c e d u r e w a s 8 6

p e r m i t t e d i n C r a i g w a s b e c a u s e “ t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t u s e o f a

p r o c e d u r e t h a t

, d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e o f f a c e

- t o

- f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n

, e n s u r e s t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f

t h e e v i d e n c e b y s u b

j e c t i n g i t t o r i g o r o u s a d v e r s a r i a l t e s t i n g a n d t h e r e b y p r e s e r v e s t h e e s s e n c e

o f e f f e c t i v e c o n f

r o n t a t i o n

. ” 8 7

T h e r e w a s n o “ r i g o r o u s a d v e r s a r i a l t e s t i n g ” o f R

. D

. ’ s t e s t i m o n i a l s t a t e m e n t s b y t h a t

g r e a t e s t l e g a l e n g i n e f

o r u n c o v e r i n g t h e t r u t h : c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

. T h e

w r i t t e n

- i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s p r o c e d u r e u s e d i n t h i s c a s e d o e s n o t p a s s m u s t e r u n d e r o u r E n g l i s h

c o m m o n

- l a w a d v e r s a r i a l s y s t e m o r o u r U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n

. T h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

r e q u i r e m e n t o f c o n f

r o n t a t i o n a n d c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n “ m a y n o t [ b e ] d i s r e g a r d [ e d ]

. . . a t o u r

reliability in a proc edure that denied one of these e lements—phy sical

prese nce—w here the re maining thr ee e lements wer e unimpaire d. I n that case , a

child witness testified in front of a one-w ay closed-c ircuit monitor that preve nted

her f rom seeing the def

endant but per

mitted the judge , jury , and def endant to see

the witness. B eca

use the witness wa s under oa th, subject to contempora neous

cross-e x amination, and her demea nor wa s on display

befor e the trie r of f

act, the

Supreme Court found that the pr ocedur e ade quately ensure d that the testimony

was “ both reliable a

nd subject to rig orous adve rsar ial testing in a manner functionally

equivalent to that ac corde d live, in person testimony .”

Id. at 505. I t seems per

verse to conclude tha t live, in-court testimony that is subject to full

adver sarial c ross-examination violates the constitution if the witness’s fac e is cove red up, but a

videotaped inter

view in which the de fenda nt has had no c ross-examination, no rig ht to confront

the witness fa ce- to-fac e, no ability to see or ha

ve the jury

see he r fa cial deme anor a s she talked to

the fore nsic interviewe r as she colore d on her pa per pa sses constitutional must er. The se two

contra dictory

results ca nnot coexist

.

Craig , 497 U.S. at 857. 8 6

Id. 8 7Coronado Pag e 27

c o n v e n i e n c e

, ” r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f d i r e c o n s e q u e n c e s

. 8 8

W e t h e r e f

o r e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s a n d r e m a n d t h i s c a s e t o t h a t

c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n

.

D e l i v e r e d : S e p t e m b e r 1 4

, 2 0 1 1

P u b l i s h

Mele ndez-Diaz, v . Massachusetts , 129 S.Ct . 2527, 2540-41 (2009) . I ndeed, in its most

8 8

rec ent Crawf

ord case , the Supreme Court re iterate d its categ orica l require ment: “As a r ule, if an

out-of-c ourt statement is testimonial in nature, it may not be introduce d ag ainst the ac cused a t

trial unless the witness who made the statement is unava ilable and the a ccuse d has had a prior

opportunity to confront

that witness.” Bullcoming, v. New Me xico , 131 S.Ct . 2705, 2713 (2011)

(empha sis added).