What has IV to do with the Law (Sixth Amendment)

[alice wellintown]

In a 2008 case in California, police tried to use testimony taken on
film from an accuser. The witness died after the film was made. Can
you be accused by the ghosts of the dead? Do you have a right to
confron your dead accusers?

Federal Rulings on the Confrontation Clause
COY V. IOWA. In June 1988 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case
similar to Commonwealth v. Willis. An Iowa trial court, pursuant to a
state law enacted to protect child victims of sexual abuse, allowed a
screen to be placed between the two child witnesses and the alleged
abuser. The lighting in the courtroom was adjusted so that the
children could not see the defendant, Coy, through the screen. Coy,
however, was able to see the children dimly and hear them testify. The
trial judge cautioned the jury that the presence of the screen was not
an indication of guilt. Coy was convicted.

In Coy v. Iowa (397 N.W.2d 730 [1986]) Coy appealed to the Iowa
Supreme Court, arguing that the screen denied him the right to
confront his accusers face to face as provided by the Sixth Amendment.
In addition, he claimed that due process was denied because the
presence of the screen implied guilt. The Iowa Supreme Court, however,
upheld the conviction of the trial court, ruling that the screen had
not hurt Coy's right to cross-examine the child witnesses, nor did its
presence necessarily imply guilt.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, in a 6–2 decision, reversed the
ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court and remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings. In Coy v. Iowa (487 U.S. 1012 [1988])
the high court maintained that the right to face-to-face confrontation
was the essential element of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation
Clause. It held that any exceptions to that guarantee would be allowed
only if needed to further an important public policy. The Court found
no specific evidence in this case that these witnesses needed special
protection that would require a screen.