Court Opinion

ID: 9664540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:20:57.751139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:07.105096
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
(concurring). Although I concur in the majority opinion, I write separately to express my dismay at the apparent win-at-all-costs attitude displayed by both Wilkens' trial and appellate counsel.
In explaining why he believed, in retrospect, that he should have objected to the exclusion of the general public from the preliminary examination, Wilkens' trial counsel testified as follows:
A I suppose that because hearings sometimes are held in open court and people are there to *629observe victims. Sometimes these witnesses who are victims would be, sometimes they have a tendency maybe to just — they might sometimes tighten up and they get a little more frightened and they may not tend to be as easy with their testimony, whether it is to the benefit of the defense or to the prosecution is something we have to be aware of.
Q So, your statement in saying that you think it might have helped is based not on this specific case but just in general that you think it might be tougher for a victim to have to testify in front of a big group of people than in front of a smaller group of people?
A That's right.
Wilkens' appellate counsel has embraced this theme on appeal, arguing that trial counsel's "actions deprived the defendant of his right to a public preliminary examination with its attendant pressure on the victim-witness
I recognize that one of the consequences of a public trial is the impression upon each witness of the solemnity of his or her oath to testify truthfully. See Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984). In this regard, the public trial operates in a way similar to the face-to-face component of the right to confrontation — namely, it "enhances the accuracy of factfinding by reducing the risk that a witness will wrongfully implicate an innocent person." Maryland v. Craig, 110 S. Ct. 3157, 3164 (1990). Nevertheless, just as the face-to-face component of confrontation will, at times, be subordinate to other significant issues of public policy, id., 110 S. Ct. at 3164-3166, so too will a criminal defendant's right to a public proceeding, Waller, 467 U.S. at 45; see also Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 9 n.2 (1986); Globe News*630paper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 607-610 (1982).
The criminal justice system must protect victims of crime from "undue emotional pressure or harassment" or "undue embarrassment and emotional trauma," and a defendant's right to a public proceeding may, accordingly, have to give way. State ex rel. Stevens v. Circuit Court, 141 Wis. 2d 239, 254, 414 N.W.2d 832, 838 (1987); accord Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 607-610 (sexual assault victims under the age of eighteen).1 It is this public interest that section 970.03(4), Stats., was designed to address.2 Although section 970.03(4) is subject to a criminal defendant's right to a public preliminary examination, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Stevens has recognized, and has rightfully accommodated, the special fragility of some victims by permitting the public's exclusion from preliminary examinations in sexual assault cases when that is necessary to protect the victim.
As I have pointed out elsewhere:
*631Crime takes a terrible toll on its victims. A 1985 survey of crime victims in Kentucky, for example, reported the typical devastation left in crime's wake:
Results made from the victimization study suggest that in the short term (within a year of the incident) victims of crime were significantly more depressed and more fearful than non-victims, victims of violent crime reported the highest level of depression and fear, and victims of multiple incidents of crime during one year reported higher levels of depression and fear than did those who reported only one crime incident or no crime. In the long term, the level of fear in victims continued to be higher than the level of fear in non-victims and the long-term effects of violence on fear of crime are more pronounced than are the long-term effects of experiencing property crime.
State v. Jones, 151 Wis. 2d 488, 497, 444 N.W.2d 760, 764 (Ct. App. 1989) (Fine, J., concurring) (quoting from 7 Criminal Justice Statistic Ass'n, Inc., The CJSA Forum 2 (May, 1989)). The criminal justice system must not exacerbate victims’ trauma. It also must not permit its processes to subvert the system's ultimate goal of truth and justice. In my view, it is highly improper to use the right to a public proceeding as a bludgeon with which to bully a fragile victim into either a fear-based refusal to testify or testimonial incoherence and inconsistency; not every tactic may be pursued in the quest for victory. "A criminal trial is not a 'game.' " Morris, 461 U.S. at 15.

The special needs of victims wracked by the terror of their ordeals are appropriately considered in other contexts as well. Thus, the United States Supreme Court has held that sparing a victim the trauma of having to testify at a new trial is a legitimate factor to be considered in deciding whether to reverse a conviction because of an alleged marginal violation of a defendant's rights. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1983).

 Section 970.03(4), Stats., provides:
If the defendant is accused of a crime under s. 940.225,948.02,948.05 or 948.06, the judge shall, at the request of the complaining witness, exclude from the hearing all persons not officers of the court, members of the witness's or defendant's families or others deemed by the court to be supportive of them, or otherwise required to attend. The judge may exclude all such persons from the hearing in any case where the defendant is accused of a crime under s. 940.225, 948.02, 948.05 or 948.06 or a crime against chastity, morality or decency.