NCJ Number
107915
Journal
Hofstra Law Review Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1985) Pages: 261-296
Date Published
1985
Length
36 pages
Annotation
Videotaping of the testimony of child victims of sexual assault does not violate the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation with the accuser, provided that appropriate guidelines are followed.
Abstract
Since 1977, several States have enacted statutes allowing the testimony of these child victims to be videotaped for use at trial. The statutes differ in three main respects: (1) the findings that must be made for the testimony to be preserved on videotape prior to trial, (2) the procedures to be followed in videotaping, and (3) the findings required for the tape to be admitted into evidence at trial. Rulings of lower courts and the U.S. Supreme Court suggest the ways that use of videotaping can appropriately. First, the trial court should not order that the child's testimony be taped unless the prosecution can demonstrate at a pretrial hearing that the child is likely to be unable to testify at trial because of the danger of severe and possibly permanent emotional or mental injury. In addition, the defendant should be physically present when the child testifies. The child victim should be sworn as a witness and examined to determined competency. Cross-examination should be permitted. These procedures will accommodate the needs of child victims without necessarily jeopardizing the defendant's constitutional rights. 231 footnotes.