Court Opinion

ID: 9744029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:52:20.156132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:46.276128
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the Majority’s treatment of the confrontation issue, however, I feel that we should point out and emphasize that the very core of the constitutional guarantee is to avoid the ex parte affida*113vits and depositions by a magistrate which excluded any meaningful cross examination. Too, as Justice O’Connor pointed out in Coy v. Iowa (1988), 487 U.S. 1012, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 2804, 101 L.Ed.2d 857, the physical face-to-face confrontation is not to be taken literally:
But it is also not novel to recognize that a defendant’s “right physically to face those who testify against him” ... even if located at the “core” of the Confrontation Clause, is not absolute, and I reject any suggestion to the contrary in the Court’s opinion.
In the present case, Klenk was clearly advised of his right to cross examine witnesses. His right of confrontation was not violated.