Opinion ID: 2103508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Before Trial

Text: Before trial, the prosecutor requested that O.H.B.'s trial testimony be taken out of appellant's physical presence. Specifically, the prosecutor proposed that O.H.B. be placed in the jury room and her live testimony shown over closed-circuit television to appellant, his counsel, and the jury. Appellant's counsel objected, stating that it was an abridgement of [his] client's right of confrontation if the [c]ourt allows anything other than having the complaining witness present in this courtroom and present before [his] client. The trial judge recognized that the prosecutor's request raised a novel issue in this jurisdiction. After hearing arguments from both the government and defense counsel, the trial judge agreed with the government that Maryland v. Craig, supra , controlled, and thus the judge undertook an inquiry to determine whether the closed-circuit television procedure was necessary on the facts of this case. In concluding that such a procedure was necessary to protect O.H.B.'s welfare, the trial judge made the following findings: 1. [T]he child witness would be traumatized by the presence of the Defendant and the emotional distress suffered by the child in the presence of the Defendant is more than de minimis; 2. [A]t the time of the initial hearing in the presence of the Defendant, the witness was withdrawn and hesitant and slow in answering. She hid her face with her hands over the microphone in this instance and she actually sank down in the witness chair and disappeared under the bench in front of the witness chair; 3. [W]hen the Defendant was removed and placed behind the one or two-way glass panel ... in the second phase of the competency hearing, the witness did testify and she testified she was afraid of Edmond ... the Defendant. 4. So, therefore, to protect the child witness from the trauma of testifying in the physical presence of the Defendant, which trauma I fear would interfere with the witness' ability to communicate, I think that the use of the t.v. procedure is warranted in this case. The judge gave appellant three options to choose from regarding the manner in which the television procedure would be conducted. [6] Although preserving his objection to any of these procedures on Sixth Amendment grounds, appellant chose the option which allowed him to be present in the courtroom with the judge and jury, while the child, the prosecutor, and defense counsel were in the adjacent jury room. Defense counsel had unrestricted access both to the judge, in order to obtain rulings on any objections counsel might have, and to appellant, in order to consult. Appellant also had unrestricted access to his attorney.