U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Child Sexual Abuse: A New Decade for the Protection of Our Children?

NCJ Number
129614
Journal
Emory Law Journal Volume: 39 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1990) Pages: 581-618
Author(s)
G R Nuce
Date Published
1990
Length
38 pages
Annotation
Tension exists between society's interest in protecting child victims of sexual abuse and the right of defendants to confront witnesses, and courts should liberalize certain evidentiary rules and courtroom procedures because of the unusual nature of child sexual abuse.
Abstract
In Coy v. Iowa, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the sixth amendment's confrontation clause gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses who provide evidence against them at trial. In recognizing this right, the court found that placing a screen between a child witness and the defendant during testimony violated the defendant's right to confrontation. Even so, the author contends that certain statutory provisions designed to protect child sexual abuse victims will survive constitutional scrutiny. He asserts that, under certain narrow circumstances, the protection of children is a compelling interest of such great magnitude that it warrants an abbreviation of the right to confrontation provided under the sixth amendment. He also maintains that, in analyzing compelling State interests, courts should consider social science evidence. In so doing, courts are likely to find the protection of child witnesses is a compelling interest deserving protection. Further, provided that closed-circuit techniques are implemented only after a detailed analysis of each sexual abuse allegation, courts will be able to balance the interests of child victims and defendants, maintain the defendant's presumption of innocence before the jury, and facilitate the determination of truth in judicial proceedings. The author notes that the choice of words "face-to-face" in the sixth amendment may have resulted from an inability to foresee technological developments that permit cross-examination without physical presence. Lower court decisions in which statutes limiting confrontation between child witnesses and the accused have been upheld are examined. 203 footnotes