Document: 487 U.S. 1012 108 S.Ct. 2798 101 L.Ed.2d 857 John Avery COY, Appellantv.IOWA. No. 86-6757. Argued Jan. 13, 1988. Decided June 29, Syllabus Appellant was charged with sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls. At appellant's jury trial, the court granted State's motion, pursuant to a 1985 state statute intended protect child victims of sexual abuse, place screen between appellant and girls during their testimony, which blocked him from sight but allowed see them dimly hear them. The rejected argument that this procedure violated Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment, gives defendant right "to be confronted witnesses against him." convicted counts lascivious acts child, Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. Held: 1. by its words provides criminal "confront" face-to-face giving evidence at trial. That core guarantee serves general perception confrontation is essential fairness, helps ensure integrity factfinding process making it more difficult for lie. Pp. 1015-1020. 2. Appellant's since issue enabled complaining avoid viewing as they gave testimony. There no merit assertion creates presumption trauma abuse outweighs confrontation. Even if an exception can made, would have based on something than type generalized finding asserted here, unless were "firmly . rooted in our jurisprudence." Bourjaily v. United States, 483 171, 183, 107 2775, 2783, 97 144. An created hardly viewed rooted," there been individualized findings these particular needed special protection. 1020-1021. 3. Since State did not address question whether error harmless beyond reasonable doubt under Chapman California, 386 18, 24, 87 824, 828, 17 705, case must remanded. 1021—1022. 397 N.W.2d 730 (Iowa 1986) reversed SCALIA, J., delivered opinion Court, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, joined, post, p. ---. BLACKMUN, dissenting REHNQUIST, C.J., KENNEDY, took part consideration or decision case. Paul Papak, City, Iowa, appellant. Gordon E. Allen, Des Moines, appellee. Justice SCALIA Court. 1 after trial placed sight. contends procedure, authorized statute, his Amendment confront him. 2 * In August 1985, arrested earlier month while camping out backyard house next door According girls, assailant entered tent asleep wearing stocking over head, shined flashlight eyes, warned look him; neither able describe face. November beginning made motion recently enacted Act May 23, § 6, Acts 338, now codified Code 910A.14 (1987),1 allow testify either via closed-circuit television behind screen. See App. 4-5. approved use large witness stand girls' After certain lighting adjustments courtroom, enable perceive witnesses, all. 3 objected strenuously screen, first all right. He argued that, although device might succeed apparent aim feel less uneasy directly addressed defendants also due violated, make appear guilty thus erode innocence. both constitutional claims, though instructed draw inference 4 affirmed conviction, (1986). It ground ability cross-examine impaired violation Clause. argument, screening inherently prejudicial. We noted probable jurisdiction, 1019, 3260, 760 (1987). II 5 This language "comes us faded parchment," California Green, 399 149, 174, 90 1930, 1943, 26 489 (1970) (Harlan, concurring), lineage traces back beginnings Western legal culture. are indications existed Roman law. Governor Festus, discussing proper treatment prisoner, Paul, stated: "It manner Romans deliver any man up die before accused has met accusers face face, given chance defend himself charges." 25:16. form recognized England well Pollitt, Right Confrontation: Its History Modern Dress, 8 J.Pub.L. 381, 384-387 (1959). 6 Most Court's encounters involved admissibility out-of-court statements, see, e.g., Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597 (1980); Dutton Evans, 400 74, 91 210, 27 213 (1970), restrictions scope cross-examination, Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 106 1431, 89 674 (1986); Davis Alaska, 415 308, 94 1105, 39 347 (1974). Cf. Fensterer, 474 15, 18-19, 292, 294, 88 15 (1985) (per curiam ) (noting categories applicable). reason not, suggests, elements essence Clause's protection—but rather, quite contrary, least some room (and hence litigation) extent includes those elements, whereas, Harlan put it, "[s]imply matter English" confers "a meet who give trial." supra, 175, S.Ct., 1943-1944. Simply Latin well, word ultimately derives prefix "con-" (from "contra" meaning "against" "opposed") noun "frons" (forehead). Shakespeare describing root when he had Richard Second say: "Then call presence—face frowning brow brow, ourselves will accuser freely speak. ." II, 1, sc. 7 never doubted, therefore, guarantees meeting appearing trier fact. Kentucky Stincer, 482 730, 748, 749-750, 2658, 2668, 96 631 (1987) (MARSHALL, dissenting). For example, Kirby 174 47, 55, 19 574, 577, 43 L.Ed. 890 (1899), concerned prior convictions codefendants prove element offense receiving stolen Government property, we described operation follows: "[A] fact primarily established only cannot proved except upon whom being tried, entitled cross-examine, whose testimony may impeach every mode rules governing conduct cases." Similarly, Dowdell 221 325, 330, 31 590, 592, 55 753 (1911), provision Philippine Bill Rights substantially same proceeded interpret secure so far facts provable concerned, such presence, opportunity cross-examination." More recently, "literal 'confront' time trial" forming "the values furthered Clause." 157, 1934-1935. Last Term, plurality Pennsylvania Ritchie, 480 39, 51, 989, 998, 40 (1987), stated "[t]he types protections defendant: physically him, Amendment's encounter ends related appearances reality. embellished references quotations antiquity convey deep human nature regards "essential fair prosecution." Pointer Texas, 380 400, 404, 85 1065, 1068, 13 923 (1965). What true old modern times. President Eisenhower once code hometown Abilene, Kansas. said, necessary "[m]eet anyone you disagree. You could sneak behind, do damage without suffering penalty outraged citizenry. country, someone dislikes you, accuses come front. hide shadow." Press release remarks B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, 1953, quoted 381. phrase still persists, "Look me eye say that." Given feelings what fairness,2 "contributes establishment system justice reality fairness prevails." Lee Illinois, 476 530, 540, 2056, 2062, 514 9 persisted centuries because much truth it. A "may differently repeat story looking harm greatly distorting mistaking facts. understand sort is." Z. Chafee, Blessings Liberty 35 (1956), Jay Boyd, 351 345, 375-376, 76 919, 935-936, 1242 (1956) (Douglas, always tell lie about person face" "behind back." former context, even told, often told convincingly. does course, compel fix eyes defendant; studiously elsewhere, own conclusions. Thus purpose explicit component frequent occasion discuss accuser; "ensur[e] fact-finding process." U.S., 736, 2662. gainsay profound effect standing presence accuses, very phenomenon relies establish potential "trauma" allegedly justified extraordinary present may, unfortunately, upset truthful rape victim abused child; token confound undo false accuser, reveal coached malevolent adult. truism costs. III 10 remaining specifically designed record indicates successful objective. 10-11. imagine obvious damaging defendant's encounter. 11 suggests interest stake here outweighed necessity protecting abuse. past indicated rights conferred absolute, way other important interests. referred cases, however, narrowly explicitly set forth Clause, rather are, be, reasonably implicit—namely, Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 295, 93 1038, 1045-1046, 297 (1973); exclude 63-65, 2537-2539; point proceedings itself, supra. To hold determination implications take into account interests holding identify exceptions, light interests, irreducible literal Clause: 1943-1944 concurring) (emphasis added). leave another day, exceptions exist. Whatever surely further public policy. Cf 64, 2538; 1045-1046. maintains legislatively imposed trauma. Our cases suggest, normal opposed most application, underlying 2782, 144 (citing (1970)). passed firmly rooted. protection, judgment sustained conceivable exception. 12 briefly standard 705 (1967). violations subject harmless-error analysis, 679, 684, 1436, 1438, why denial should treated same. assessment harmlessness include witness' unchanged, jury's unaltered, confrontation; inquiry obviously involve pure speculation, therefore determined basis evidence. issue, found violation. circumstances case, decide doubt, below. find unnecessary reach claim. reverse remand inconsistent opinion. 14 ordered. KENNEDY 16 WHITE joins, concurring. I agree write separately note my view absolute appropriate competing permit procedural devices shield courtroom 18 Child problem disturbing proportions today's society. Just last "[c]hild one problems detect prosecute, victim." 60, 1003, Once instance identified prosecution undertaken, new difficulties arise. Many States suffer exposure harsh atmosphere typical undertaken through variety ameliorative measures. deal today ramifications measure, broader backdrop. appears authorizing used generally Brief American Bar Association Amicus Curiae 1a-9a (collecting statutes). full half one- two-way television. Statutes sanctioning one-way systems separate judge, counsel, technicians, defendant, present. child's broadcast jury. Two-way video monitor. addition procedures, 33 (including 25 television) videotaped typically taken presence. id., 9a-18a While wish clear nothing necessarily dooms efforts legislatures witnesses. Initially, many procedures raise substantial defendant. See, Ala.Code 15-25-3 (Supp.1987) (one-way television; witness); Ga.Code Ann. 17-8-55 (same); N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law §§ 65.00-65.30 (McKinney Supp.1988) (two-way television); Cal.Penal 1347 (West (same). Indeed, seems fall category permits "parties" witness. 20 Moreover, runs afoul requirements, within use. novel proposition embodies requirement expressly said much, long ago 1899, 890, 998. But recognize "right him," ibid., located "core" reject suggestion contrary ante, 2802. Rather, again "reflects preference trial," overcome close examination "competing interests" warrants. 63-64, 2537-2538, (1980) (1973) ("Of bow accommodate legitimate process"). impacts "irreducible Clause," 1021, alter conclusion. virtually approving hearsay implicated 1934-1935, yet fallen (1970). interpretation bar statements declarant unavailable," acknowledged "this 'unintended too extreme.' " Id., 182, 2782 (quoting 63, 2537-2538). short, precedents absolute. elsewhere. 21 Thus, called 1021 supra; supra ). protection is, majority just primary focus likely prong. legislative required. makes case-specific necessity, required number statutes, 1347(d)(1) Supp.1988); Fla.Stat. 92.54(4) (1987); Mass.Gen.Laws 278:16D(b)(1) N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A:84A-32.4(b) (Supp.1988), suggest strictures compelling Because conflicts approach conclusion, join 22 THE CHIEF JUSTICE dissenting. 23 engaging child. Because, view, employed offend Due Process affirm conviction. Accordingly, respectfully dissent. 24 A. "shall enjoy accordance language, protected shown real probe accusation front fact: 'The object [Confrontation Clause] prevent depositions ex parte affidavits prisoner lieu personal cross-examination opportunity, testing recollection sifting conscience witness, order judge demeanor worthy belief.' 736-737, 2662-2663, quoting Mattox 156 237, 242-243, 337, 339, 409 (1895). Two assaulting. During permitted appellant, blocking line vision.1 interfere previously "purposes confrontation." 158, 1935, Specifically, oath, unrestricted [was] fate [could] observe witness[es] [their] statement[s], aiding assessing credibility." Ibid. addition, seeing hearing conferring counsel seen jury, testified. Finally, informed stand.2 sole complaint narrow objection testified assault endured. 28 describes ensuring Ante, 1021. significance characterization, borne logic precedent. concurrence "[t]here novel" 'reflects ' 1024, added concurrence), disagreement "preference" constellation provided reasons. First, minimal infringement relevant considering policies justify Second, fear fascination lead attempting adopt innovations facilitate sex sacrifice other, central, testifying 29 weakness support characterization claim involving Clause" reflected reliance literature, anecdote, dicta opinions join. cites possibly understood ascribing weight testifying: "Our decisions seem early date forms 1934. immediately explained Green quotation 339-340, above affidavits, provide 'to jury.' 1935 30 Whether "there nature," 1017, considers critical testifying, common law's requirement. "There law indispensable thing distinguished original). J. Wigmore, Evidence 1397, 158 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974). Dean Wigmore's statement infinitely persuasive Eisenhower's Kansas justice, 1017 1018, mouth concerning best means ascertaining truth, 1016.3 fact, Wigmore considered "from rule [in 1700's] day" "not idle gazing gazed but, 1395, 150. 316, 1110, requirement, notes confrontation"—there "secondary dispensable [of right:] tribunal furnish credibility gathered therefrom. [This principle] satisfied throughout material where adequately observed." (Emphasis original.) 1399, 199. "right" warrant mention dispensable" 32 constitute afforded demonstrated hearsay, admission held co-conspirator violate reaching consider accusatory statement. Instead, concentrated reliability had. 88-89, 219-220. 146 140, 151-152, 50, 53-54, 36 917 (1892) (dying declarations admissible). outside implicate here. Yet, recognize, 1016, statements. 1935. importance belied simple observation blind serious notwithstanding identity restriction presented.4 B 34 strongly disagree insinuation, 1019—1020, presented severe others examined, implicates embodied 2537. "preference," like rights, 'must occasionally considerations policy necessities case.' 2538, 243, 340. 1046, (1973). limited departure "confrontation" normally sufficiently significant interest. Indisputably, considerable importance. Between 1976 reported incidents maltreatment rose 0.67 million 1.9 million, estimated 11.7 percent allegations Protecting Children, Highlights Official Neglect Abuse Reporting pp. 3, sex-abuse poses emotional frequently suffered assaults suffered. "[T]o confrontation, anticipation experience proximity overwhelming." D. Whitcomb, Shapiro, & L. Stellwagen, When Victim Child: Issues Judges Prosecutors 17-18 (1985). Although research area stages, studies children indicate "associated increased behavioural disturbance children." G. Goodman, et al., Emotional Effects Criminal Testimony Sexual Assault Victims, Witness: Do Courts Children?, Criminalogical Legal Psychology, 46, 52 (British Psychological Assn. 1988). Avery, Potential Secondary Victimization, Crim.Just.J. 3-4 (1983); S. Sgroi, Handbook Clinical Intervention 133-134 (1982). associated identifiable consequences: They cause psychological injury overwhelm possibility effective thereby undermining truth-finding function itself.5 effects, 1025, properly policy, device, here—the having testifies. 37 argues, concludes, societal testifies, show each welfare. As allowing demonstrate, applicability commonplace.6 impose different requiring predicate showing 38 concluding legislature authorize specific 'firmly jurisprudence.' ----, Reliance employing rationale misplaced. jurisprudence seeks introduce statement, statement's reliability. circumstances, held: "Reliability inferred falls excluded, absent particularized trustworthiness." 66, 2539. 182-183, 2782-2783. Clearly, case-by-case subjected crossexamination, lacked sufficient indicia reasons, believe argues "inherently prejudicial" question, discussion correspondingly brief. 41 Questions inherent prejudice arise contended involves probability result deemed lacking Estes 381 532, 542-543, 1628, 1632-1633, 543 arrangement challenged prejudicial, "an unacceptable risk impermissible factors coming play," Estelle Williams, 425 501, 505, 1691, 1693, 48 126 (1976). If verdict upheld Holbrook Flynn, 560, 568-569, 1340, 1345-1346, 525 42 properly, dim lights panel bright creating, judge's words, "sort dramatic emphasis" potentially "eerie" effect. 11, 14. prejudicial guilty. am unpersuaded argument. Unlike clothing prison garb, shackled gagged, Illinois 344, 1057, 1061, 353 using "brand [appellant] 'with unmistakable mark guilt.' 571, 1347, 518, 1699 (BRENNAN, trapping convicted. unlikely subconscious attitude toward 570, 1346. 44 device: 45 "It's there's courtroom. General Assembly children. Now, caution later kind know, plainest guilt, shouldn't your mind guilt part. It's intellectual thing." 17. 46 helpful instruction, jury—which assume intelligent capable following instructions—drew improper all, "every practice tending single everyone else [need not] struck down." 567, 1345 (placement four uniformed troopers row spectators' section, prejudicial). 47 Section "The require party confined [sic] adjacent mirror party. However, confined, shall measures insure confer inform testimony." dissent finds William Shakespeare. Post, 1029. Surely depend cited for. latter merely illustrate "confrontation," currency feeling accusers. "was requirement." begin with, thing. precisely, was: cross-examination. indispensable, secured names." 1974) saying, (as term, i.e., natural sense) exist, then continued: follows benefit privilege Constitution." Of follow dispensed justly publicly known convicted—the purposes asserts, (inconsistently thesis, seem), secondary produce subjective moral witness." 153. grudgingly "earlier periods," supposed (more is) unstring nerves witness," 153, n. 2; asserted, support, "does opponent tribunal," 154 reciting law, setting thesis preserved cross-examination—with purpose, vindicating attack sensible traditional (which otherwise vindicated). implausible, "be him" exceedingly strange express dissent's contention "belied observation" "blind [might have] appellant," 2808, live, oral speech- hearing-impaired Apparently unable attacker. Their attacker dark, appeared head. effort try done, moving Neither attempt demonstrate constitutionality refusal requires "inform 910A.14(1) contain transcript court's advising "makes [that the] failed comply with" terms statute. 733 concedes "[f]or appeal." 5, 9. Interestingly, precise uses explain "root confrontation," 1016 discussed renowned accepted authority expressed conception, current [Shakespeare's] which, ratified, merged "with principle answers "no testified." comparison flawed. deaf mute incapable cross-examined presumably offer direct importantly, completely testify), think challenge brought whatever offer. experts commentators concluded actually enhanced protective procedures. Sheppard, 197 N.J.Super. 411, 416, 484 A.2d 1330, 1332 (1984); Note, Parent-Child Incest: Proof Trial Without Victim, U.Mich.J. Ref. 131 (1981). co-conspirator, excited utterances, business records admissible Federal Rules supporting allows admission. Fed.Rules Evid. 801(d)(2), 803(2), 803(6). these, propriety showing, Inadi, 387, 1121, 390 (1986), 181-184, 2781-2783,

Category: 0