Legal Document

497 U.S. 836 110 S.Ct. 3157 111 L.Ed.2d 666 MARYLAND, Petitionerv.Sandra Ann CRAIG. No. 89-478. Argued April 18, 1990. Decided June 27, Syllabus Respondent Craig was tried in a Maryland court on several charges related to her alleged sexual abuse of 6-year-old child. Before the trial began, State sought invoke state statutory procedure permitting judge receive, by one-way closed circuit television, testimony an child victim upon determining that child's courtroom would result suffering serious emotional distress, such he or she could not reasonably communicate. If is invoked, child, prosecutor, and defense counsel withdraw another room, where examined cross-examined; judge, jury, defendant remain courtroom, displayed. Although cannot see defendant, remains electronic communication with counsel, objections may be made ruled as if witness were courtroom. The rejected Craig's objection procedure's use violates Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment, ruling retained essence right confrontation. Based expert testimony, also found other allegedly abused children who witnesses suffer distress they required testify each unable Finding competent testify, permitted under procedure, convicted. Court Special Appeals affirmed, but reversed. it argument requires all cases face-to-face encounter between accused accusers, State's showing insufficient reach high threshold Coy v. Iowa, 487 1012, 108 2798, 101 857 before invoked. held usually invoked unless initially questioned defendant's presence that, using television must determine whether severe two-way television. Held: 1. does guarantee criminal defendants absolute meeting against them at trial. Clause's central purpose, ensure reliability evidence subjecting rigorous testing adversary proceeding trier fact, served combined effects elements confrontation: physical presence, oath, cross-examination, observation demeanor fact. confrontation forms core values, indispensable element right. were, abrogate virtually every hearsay exception, long unintended too extreme, Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 63, 100 2531, 2537, 65 597. Accordingly, interpreted manner sensitive its purpose necessities process. See, e.g., Kirby United States, 174 47, 19 574, 43 L.Ed. 890. Nonetheless, confront accusatory satisfied absent physical, only denial necessary further important public policy testimony's otherwise assured. Coy, supra, 1021. Pp. 844-850. 2. Maryland's interest protecting from trauma testifying case sufficiently justify special provided makes adequate necessity individual case. 851-857. (a) While prevents seeing preserves and, thus, adequately ensures both reliable subject adversarial functionally equivalent accorded live, in-person testimony. These assurances are far greater than those for admission statements. Thus, interest, impinge truth-seeking symbolic purposes. 851-852. (b) A psychological well-being victims outweigh, least some cases, face his accusers court. fact most States have enacted similar statutes attests widespread belief policy's importance, this has previously recognized compelling minor sex crimes embarrassment, see, Globe Newspaper Co. Superior Norfolk County, 457 596, 607, 102 2613, 2620, 73 248. Legislature's considered judgment regarding importance will second-guessed, given traditional transcendent welfare growing body academic literature documenting suffered 852-855. (c) requisite finding specific. hear protect particular witness' welfare; find traumatized, generally, presence; more de minimis. Without minimum statute, which determination communicate, clearly suffices meet constitutional standards. 855-857. (d) Since there no dispute here, testified full able observed testified, admitting their consonant Clause, proper been made. P. 857. 3. erred extent rested conclusion did make lower court's failure observe children's behavior explore less restrictive alternatives procedure. evidentiary requirements strengthen grounds protective measures, case-specific required. This establish, matter federal law, categorical prerequisites 857-860. 316 Md. 551, 560 A.2d 1120 (1989). Vacated remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, STEVENS, joined, post, p. 860. J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Baltimore, Md., petitioner. William H. Murphy, respondent. [Amicus Curiae Information pages 839-841 intentionally omitted] Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 us decide Amendment categorically prohibits trial, outside 2 * In October 1986, Howard County grand jury charged respondent, Sandra Craig, abuse, first second degree offenses, perverted practice, assault, battery. named count girl who, August 1984 had attended kindergarten prekindergarten center owned operated Craig. 3 March 1987, went permits abuse.1 To "determin[e] communicate." Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 9-102(a)(1)(ii) Once witness, separate room; then cross-examined while video monitor records displays During time defendant. 4 support motion invoking presented well number sexually "serious [they not] communicate," 9-102(a)(1)(ii), App. 7-59. characterized follows: 5 "The suggested considerable difficulty presence. For example, one said what 'would cause him anxiety front Mrs. . .' 'wouldn't communicate effectively.' As another, probably stop talking curl up.' With respect two others, 'become highly agitated, refuse talk talk, choose regardless questions' extremely timid unwilling talk.' " 568-569, 1120, 1128-1129 6 objected grounds, contention, concluding although statute "take[s] away accuser," retains "essence confrontation," including observe, cross-examine, view witness. 65-66. "based these Id., 66. three accordingly via convicted counts, affirmed convictions, 76 Md.App. 250, 544 784 (1988). 7 reversed remanded new id., 556-562, A.2d, 1122-1125, concluded: 8 "[U]nder operative 'serious distress' renders 'reasonably communicate' determined arise, primarily, we construe phrase 'in courtroom' meaning, sixth amendment [state constitution] purposes, defendant.' Unless prevention 'eyeball-to-eyeball' obtain denied right." 566, 1127. 9 Reviewing 9-102 "as [it] read [v. (1988) ], invoked." Id. 554-555, 1121 (footnote omitted). 10 We granted certiorari resolve issues raised 493 1041, 834, 107 830 (1990). II 11 applicable through Fourteenth provides: "In prosecutions, shall enjoy confronted him." 12 Iowa "the guarantees appearing fact." U.S., 1016, S.Ct., 2801 (citing Kentucky Stincer, 482 730, 748, 749-750, 2658, 2669, 2670, 96 631 (1987) (MARSHALL, dissenting)); Pennsylvania Ritchie, 480 39, 51, 989, 998, 94 40 (plurality opinion); California Green, 399 149, 157, 90 1930, 1934, 26 489 (1970); Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 106, 54 330, 332, 78 674 (1934); Dowdell 221 325, 31 590, 592, 55 753 (1911); 55, 577, 890 (1899); Mattox 156 237, 244, 15 337, 340, 39 409 (1895). interpretation derives literal text our understanding historical roots. See 1015-1016, 2800; Mattox, 242, 339 (Confrontation intended prevent conviction affidavit); 156, 1934 (same); cf. Story, Commentaries Constitution 1785, 662 (1833). 13 never held, however, Indeed, expressly "le[ft] day question any exceptions exist" "irreducible meaning Clause: 'a appear give trial.' 1021, 2803 (quoting 175, 1943 (Harlan, concurring)). challenged involved placement screen prevented 1014-1015, 2799-2800. holding violated him, exception "would surely allowed when policy"—i.e., something generalized, "legislatively imposed presumption trauma" underlying issue 2803; 1025, 2805 (O'Connor, concurring). concluded "[s]ince ha[d] individualized findings needed protection, [in us] sustained conceivable exception." 2803. Because reserved Coy. 14 concern context word "confront," after all, means clashing forces ideas, thus carrying notion adversariness. noted earliest interpreting primary object provision depositions ex parte affidavits, sometimes admitted civil being used prisoner lieu personal examination cross-examination opportunity, recollection sifting conscience stand order look gives worthy belief." 242-243, 339-340. 16 description indicates, guaranteed includes "personal examination," 339, "(1) insures statements oath—thus impressing seriousness guarding lie possibility penalty perjury; (2) submit 'greatest legal engine ever invented discovery truth'; [and] (3) fate making statement, aiding assessing credibility." 158, 1935 17 effect fact—serves purposes ensuring norm Anglo-American proceedings. 739, 2664 ("[T]he functional promoting trial"); Dutton Evans, 400 74, 89, 91 210, 219, 27 213 (1970) opinion) mission advance practical accuracy truth-determining process trials assuring 'the [has] satisfactory basis evaluating truth [testimony]' "); Lee Illinois, 476 530, 540, 106 2056, 2061, 514 (1986) (confrontation serves "symbolic goals" "promotes reliability"); Faretta California, 422 806, 818, 95 2525, 2532, 45 562 (1975) (Sixth "constitutionalizes know it"); Strickland Washington, 466 668, 684-685, 104 2052, 2062-2063, 80 (1984). 18 recognized, enhances factfinding reducing risk wrongfully implicate innocent person. 1019-1020, 2802 ("It always difficult tell about person 'to face' 'behind back.' That may, unfortunately, upset truthful rape child; same token confound undo false accuser, reveal coached malevolent adult"); n. 6, 2537 597 (1980); W. Blackstone, 373-* 374. strong requiring adverse accused's 1017, ("[T]here deep human nature regards accuser 'essential fair prosecution' ") Pointer Texas, 380 400, 404, 85 1065, 1068, 923 (1965)). values furthered Clause," nevertheless sine qua non Delaware Fensterer, 474 15, 22, 292, 295, 88 (1985) (per curiam ) generally opportunity probe expose [testimonial] infirmities [such forgetfulness, confusion, evasion] thereby calling attention factfinder reasons giving scant weight testimony"); 69, 2540 (oath, provide "all demands: 'substantial compliance behind requirement' 166, 1939); 739-744, 2664-2667 exclusion competency hearing witnesses, effective trial); Davis Alaska, 415 308, 315-316, 1105, 1109-1110, 347 (1974); Douglas Alabama, 415, 418, 1074, 1076, 934 (1965); Pointer, 406-407, 1069; Wigmore, Evidence 1395, 150 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974). 20 reason, insisted actual instance Instead, repeatedly permits, necessary, certain defendantde spite inability declarant 243, nothing directly contrary letter dying declarations"); 407, 1069 (noting declarations "other analogous situations"). Government former fully died admissible 240-244, 338-340. explained: 21 "There doubtless reason saying notes [the witness'] read, defendant] deprived advantage law designed protection. But general rules kind, however beneficent operation valuable accused, occasionally way considerations say criminal, having once should go scot free simply because death mouth protection unwarrantable extent. wisdom declares rights wholly sacrificed incidental benefit preserved accused." 22 stated reading "abrogate extreme." 2537. narrow circumstances, "competing interests, 'closely examined,' warrant dispensing trial." 64, 2538 Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 93 1038, 1045, 35 297 (1973), citing supra ). recently nontestifying co-conspirators despite lack accused. Bourjaily 483 171, 2775, 97 144 (1987); Inadi, 475 387, 1121, 89 390 (1986). Given "confronted," mean confrontation, then, prohibit statement declarant—a undoubtedly much "witness against" actually testifies 23 sum, precedents establish reflects preference trial," (emphasis added; footnote omitted), "must case," "[W]e attempted harmonize goal Clause—placing limits kind received defendant—with societal accurate factfinding, require consideration out-of-court statements." Bourjaily, 182, 2782. Kirby, 61, 578 scarcely rule entitled arises case"); Chambers, 1045 ("Of course, cross-examine appropriate bow accommodate legitimate interests process"). though reaffirm Amendment's one's accusers. commentator "[i]t universally assumed circumstances excuse confrontation." Graham, Right Hearsay Rule: Sir Walter Raleigh Loses Another One, Crim.L.Bull. 99, 107-108 (1972). 24 consistent Illinois Allen, 397 342-343, 1057, 1060, 25 353 (right present removed disruptive behavior); 51-54, 998-1000 access investigative files); Taylor 484 410-416, 646, 653-657, 98 798 compulsory precluded surprise witness); Perry Leeke, 488 272, 280-285, 109 594, 599-602, 624 (1989) assistance conferring during short break testimony). treat component differently, indeed think anomalous do so. requirement not, easily dispensed with. confirm 2538; 1045); III significant, right: oath; contemporaneous cross-examination; (albeit monitor) (and body) testifies. mindful many subtle proceeding, confrontation—oath, safeguards adversariness render cry undisputed prohibition affidavit inquisition, 389; 179, 1946 concurring) meant constitutionalize barrier flagrant abuses, anonymous absentee witnesses"). Rather, permit "confound adult," 1020, 2802, aid eliciting favorable technically out (though so hold), Clause. 66, 2539. therefore confident critical inquiry case, therefore, interest. contends substantial perpetrator receiving 28 course embarrassment" "compelling" one. 248 (1982); New York Ferber, 458 747, 756-757, 3348, 3354, 1113 FCC Pacifica Foundation, 438 726, 3026, 3040-3041, 57 1073 (1978); Ginsberg York, 629, 640, 1274, 1281, 195 (1968); Prince 321 168, 64 438, 443, 645 (1944). legislation aimed youth even laws area constitutionally protected rights." 757, 3354. Newspaper, weighty depriving press attend trials, closure minor. 608-609, 2620-21. Term, Osborne Ohio, 495 103, 1691, (1990), upheld proscribed possession viewing pornography, reaffirming '[i]t evident beyond need elaboration "safeguarding minor" "compelling." ' 109, 1696 3354-55). 29 likewise conclude today significant majority policy. 1022-1023, 2803-2804 ("Many exposure harsh atmosphere typical undertaken shield variety ameliorative measures"). Thirty-seven videotaped children;2 authorized cases;3 authorize system testimony.4 30 specifically "to safeguard avoiding, minimizing, produced testifying." Wildermuth State, 310 496, 518, 530 275, 286 (1987). noted: Maryland, Governor's Task Force Child Abuse 32 Interim Report (Nov.1984) documented existence [child abuse] problem State. It brought picture up date Final (Dec.1985). six months 1985, investigations percent numerous period 1984. 1979, 4,615 investigated; 1984, 8,321. iii. 2, Commission proposed changes, became 9-102. proposal 'aimed alleviating allowing obtained courtroom.' enhance encouraging prosecution abuser." 517, 285. 33 'transcendent children,' Ginsberg, 1281 (citation buttressed court, Brief American Psychological Association Amicus 7-13; G. Goodman et al., Emotional Effects Criminal Testimony Sexual Assault Victims, National Institute (presented conference paper annual convention Assn., Aug.1989), second-guess Legislature testifying. hold necessity, absence 34 one: seeks testify. Co., 2621 (compelling mandatory rule); concurring); Hochheiser 161 Cal.App.3d 777, 793, 208 Cal.Rptr. 273, 283 Wilhite, 160 Ariz. 228, 772 P.2d 582 (1989); Bonello, 210 Conn. 554 277 Davidson, 764 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1989); Commonwealth Ludwig, 366 Pa.Super. 361, 531 459 Denial causes trauma. words, merely unnecessary intimidating surroundings, albeit present. Finally, minimis, i.e., "mere nervousness excitement reluctance testify," Wildermuth, 524, 289; Mannion, Utah 505, 511-512, 542, 543-544 (1899). sure, very truth, 2802-03, preventing disserve goal. 1032, 2809 (BLACKMUN, dissenting) (face-to-face "may overwhelm undermining truth-finding function itself"); 18-24; Sheppard, 197 N.J.Super. 411, 416, 1330, 1332 (1984); Helgeson, Assault: Children's Memory Law, U. Miami L.Rev. 181, 203-204 (1985); Note, Videotaping Testimony: An Empirical View, Mich.L.Rev. 809, 813-820 36 caused impair ability made, IV 37 today, requirement, abridged 'case-specific necessity.' 564, 1126 latter reasoned "[t]he unavailable asked terms ordinary setting, narrower witness's "[T]he determinative preclude testimony." 565, prerequisite specific conclusion, today. 38 addition, decision impose subsidiary requirements. First, "§ ordinarily (either courtroom) presence." 1127; 523-524, 289 (personal rather exception). Second, asserted "severe distress" 567, 1128. limit invocation here." 570-571, 1129. "had communicate; himself, nor ruling. He closed-circuit television." 568, 1128 sharply focused witnesses." 569, "Unable supplement responses questions put own observations experts said. [result] communicate.' failed find—indeed, found—that product televised That, since procedures deem valid followed, 1129 added). 41 appears part 568-571, 1128-1129. decline found, it, "will [each] 9-102(a)(1)(ii). 1128-1129; 22-25, 41, 43, 44-45, 54-57. So receipt [Coy ] invoked," light standard vacate remand proceedings inconsistent opinion. 42 ordered. whom STEVENS join, dissenting. 44 Seldom conspicuously sustain tide prevailing current provides, unmistakable clarity, "[i]n enshrining assure none pursued overcome says: "We policy." Ante, 853. 46 subordination explicit currently favored policy, following scene can played centuries: father whose young daughter over exclusive custody estranged wife, mother son taken into department, sentenced prison parent seen spoken months; guilty verdict rendered without sit ask, personally "it really true, I—your (or mother) you you—did terrible things?" Perhaps today's society desires; perhaps I doubt it) procedure; assuredly Constitution. 47 clear, against, conform to, "widespread belief," respectfully dissent. 48 According "we [face-to-face] [with trial] accusers." 849-850. like impossible plausible recharacterizing (redesignated "face-to-face confrontation") becomes "elements 846. reasoning explicitly provides for—"face-to-face" implied collateral (TRUE); entire cluster (TRUE), (perhaps TRUE); denying "face-to-face" (unquestionably FALSE). abstracts eliminates wrong evidence; thought evidence, undeniably among Whatever else him" means, everywhere, 'right 2800, (1988), quoting 1943-44, 49 supports antitextual cobbling together scraps dicta various bearing here. suffice discuss them, kind: Quoting (1980), says trial,' ante, 849. added Court). "precedents" enlists prove implausible, dealt implications literal, unavoidable text. When Roberts "reflects mind nonpreferred alternative (as implies) appearance confronting been, until "nonpreferred" utterly unheard-of. What other-than-first-hand trial—that is, witnesses' recounting parties endure Rejecting agree, preference; are, rule. "reflected" Clause; unqualifiedly guaranteed. 50 claims "is process." 850. disagree. true enough "necessities process" exercised, scope textually indeterminate. Thus (to describe cites): disrupts (1970). obtaining witnesses" call orderly procedures. counsel" include consultation times files. here expansive unclear; confront" plainly face-to-face, whatever addition. And arranging encounter, occur all. irrelevant alter 51 Much Court's consists applying mode analysis evidence. literally contain applied prosecution, noun "witness"—in 1791 today—could either "who knows sees thing; present" "one testimony" "testifies," judicial proceedings, [one who] make[s] solemn declaration establishing proof court." N. Webster, Dictionary English Language (1828) Buchanan, Linguae Britannicae Vera Pronunciatio (1757). (one sees") cover excluded words noun: "witnesses obviously refers nonetheless implicit limitation government subvert putting except limitation, (which Clause) assured." test applied, forbidden text; room regard irreducible Clause." 1020-1021, 52 Some seems suggest itself sort permissible cases. 851. be. Our conditions included "general unavailability" declarant. Idaho Wright, 805, 815, 3139, 3146, 638. usual ., produce, demonstrate unavailability of, wishes defendant." 65, 2538. few rule—e.g., co-conspirators' statements, replicated live "derive [their] significance were] made," 395, 1126, "Live" however—if called all—is example "a weaker substitute testimony," 394, employed genuine article unavailable. "When versions available, longstanding principles hearsay, analysis, favor better evidence." Ibid. (requiring precondition prior testimony); Barber Page, 719, 1318, 255 (1968) (same). 53 sense defendant.1 possibly relevant sense. unconfronted presumably categories consisting unsworn perjury, un-cross-examined undergo hostile questioning, etc. (1970), precedent silly system. bar sworn refuses answer. refusal, why refused Here, contrast, precisely unwillingness place glare "That adult." 2802. loses save subpoena exculpate himself guilty. characterizes "outweigh[s]" "interest victims," 853, protecting" "from testifying," 855. meets statute's "cannot communicate" seem entirely safe. Why prosecutor want communicate? did, fault. Protection interest—as concerned2—is within control. get class proceedings: convictions defendants. unworthy dressed humanitarian side admitted: fewer defendants—specifically, context, particularly heinous crimes. "special" exist suspending matched insistent studies show substantially vulnerable suggestion adults, often recollected fantasy suggestion) reality. Lindsay Johnson, Reality Monitoring Suggestibility: Ability Discriminate Among Memories From Different Sources, Eyewitness 92 (S. Ceci, M. Toglia, D. Ross eds. 1987); Feher, Alleged Molestation Victim, Rules Evidence, Constitution: Should Children Really Be Seen Not Heard?, Am.J.Crim.L. 227, 230-233 Christiansen, Witnesses: Fact, Fantasy, Influence Pretrial Interviews, 62 Wash.L.Rev. 705, 708-711 injustice erroneous produce evidenced tragic Scott 1983-1984, disrupted lives know) people small town Jordan, Minnesota. At stage pursuing allegations eight multiple murders, prosecutions initiated abuse. Specifically, adults molesting children. investigations, placed foster homes. Of indicted defendants, pleaded guilty, acquitted remaining voluntarily dismissed. 239-240. There took Jordan; believe charged. report Minnesota attorney general's office, based inquiries conducted Bureau Apprehension Federal Investigation, "absence credible [a] corroboration" reinstitution sex-abuse charges, "no murders." Humphrey, Investigation 8, (1985). describes investigation well-intentioned techniques team, police, workers, parents, distorted coerced recollection. interrogated repeatedly, times, 9; answers telling said, 11; (even complain abuse) separated parents months, 9. consequences 56 "As continued interviewed list citizens grew. weeks questioning 'admit' them. 58 instances, time, turned stories mutilations, eventually homicide." 10-11. 59 value recollections dramatically misguided cited: told reunion real hastened "admission" parents' Is imagine how unconvincing testimonial might witnessed delight courtroom? Or devastating if, pursuant psychiatric evaluation "trauma story television? 60 last debate defend authority it. charge speculate "where witness," "in goal." so, defect Constitution—which amended eventuality, corrected pronouncement archaic, null void. good bad, liberty ignore quote document (for said): 61 "interest-balancing" conduct cost-benefit clear guarantees, adjust comport findings. convincingly proved everything (everything, confrontation). am persuaded, constitutional. affirm reversing conviction. Cts. Courts Judicial Proceedings Article Annotated Code full: "(a)(1) defined 5-701 Family Law 35A Code, shown if: "(i) proceeding; "(ii) determines "(2) Only prosecuting attorney, "(3) operators effort unobtrusive. "(b)(1) persons television: attorney; defendant; "(iii) equipment; "(iv) objects, contributes therapeutic setting concerning method. "(c) provisions section apply pro se. "(d) preclude, identification time." detailed 503-504, 278-279 Ala.Code 15-25-2 (Supp.1989); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 13-4251 4253(B), (C) Ark.Code 16-44-203 Cal.Penal 1346 (West Supp.1990); Colo.Rev.Stat. 18-3-413 18-6-401.3 (1986); Conn.Gen.Stat. 54-86g Del.Code Ann., Tit. 11, 3511 Fla.Stat. 92.53 Haw.Rev.Stat., ch. 626, Rule Evid. 616 Ill.Rev.Stat., 38, ¶ 106A-2 Ind.Code 35-37-4-8(c), (d), (f), (g) (1988); 910A.14 Kan.Stat.Ann. 38-1558 Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. 421.350(4) (Baldwin Supp.1989); Mass.Gen.Laws 278:16D (Supp.1990); Mich.Comp.Laws 600.2163a(5) Minn.Stat. 595.02(4) Miss.Code 13-1-407 Mo.Rev.Stat. 491.675-491.690 Mont.Code 46-15-401 46-15-403 Neb.Rev.Stat. 29-1926 Nev.Rev.Stat. 174.227 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 517:13-a N.M.Stat.Ann. 30-9-17 Rev.Code 2907.41(A), (B), (D), (E) Okla.Stat., 753(C) (Supp.1988); Ore.Rev.Stat. 40.460(24) Pa.Cons.Stat. 5982, 5984 R.I.Gen.Laws 11-37-13.2 S.C.Code 16-3-1530(G) S.D.Codified Laws 23A-12-9 Tenn.Code 24-7-116(d), (e), (f) Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. 38.071, (Vernon Crim.Proc. 15.5 (1990); Vt.Rule 807(d) Wis.Stat. 967.04(7) (10) (1987-1988); Wyo.Stat. 7-11-408 15-25-3 Alaska Stat.Ann. 12.45.046 13-4253 92.54 Ga.Code 17-8-55 106A-3 35-37-4-8 421-350(1), La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 15:283 13-1-405 N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A:84A-32.4 753(B) Supp.1988); Pa. Cons.Stat. 5985 (Supp.1989). 1347 19-3024A 595.02(4)(c)(2) N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law 65.00 65.30 (McKinney 2907.41(C), Va.Code 18.2-67.9 807(e) presume 857, here: Any implication event dictum. different situation event, refusal compel appear, insistence set forth condition question—initially, least, exclusively—the favor."

Classification Label: 0