Opinion ID: 2178210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: H.A.'s Testimony Outside Presence of Defendant

Text: Ahmed argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right in allowing H.A. to testify outside his presence because the trial court failed to make a sufficient finding of necessity. [T]he trial court has inherent authority ... to control the conduct of the proceedings before it, in order to ensure that the proper decorum and appropriate atmosphere are established, that all parties are treated fairly, and that justice is done. Hicks-Bey v. United States, 649 A.2d 569, 575 (D.C.1994) (citing Guaranty Dev. Co. v. Liberstein, 83 A.2d 669, 671 (D.C.1951)). To protect from further harm child witnesses who have allegedly been abused, the trial court may allow the witness to testify outside the presence of the defendant through closed-circuit television. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990); Hicks-Bey, 649 A.2d at 570. In Craig, the Supreme Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right is not violated if a child witness testifies outside the presence of the defendant, as long as the court finds that the procedure is a necessity. A finding of necessity requires that the trial court: 1) hear evidence and determine whether use of the one-way closed circuit television procedure is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify, 2) find that the child witness would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the presence of the defendant, and 3) must find that the emotional distress suffered by the child witness in the presence of the defendant is more than de minimis . . . . Craig, 497 U.S. at 855-56, 110 S.Ct. 3157. In this jurisdiction, as long as the trial court makes findings which satisfy the three Craig criteria, the defendant's Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights are not violated. See Hicks-Bey, 649 A.2d at 575. In this case, the trial court made comprehensive findings ... which clearly satisfy all the Craig criteria. Id. The trial court relied, inter alia, on H.A.'s continued fear of testifying in front of her father, the fact that she ran away and spent the night on the street rather than coming to court to testify, and the fact that H.A. was experiencing psychological trauma from testifying in front of her father. Because the trial court's findings were supported by the record, there was no error in allowing H.A. to complete her testimony outside the presence of her father. See Craig, 497 U.S. at 857, 110 S.Ct. 3157 (stressing that Confrontation Clause not violated where, in addition to a proper finding of necessity, the child witnesses testified under oath, were subject to full cross-examination, and were able to be observed by the judge, jury, and defendant as they testified.). [5] For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.