Des Moines, Iowa (AP) – The best prosecutor of Iowa proposes a change in the State Constitution to resolve what a legislator called an “interesting puzzle”, weighing the constitutional law to oppose its prosecutor in the courtroom against the desire to protect the injured children and the traumatic children.
But some worry that the proposal may prevent the defendant’s rights in court.
Iow’s house approved the measure last week and it adopted the Senate in March, although it would take years and several other votes – from lawmakers and the public – before the state constitution was changed.
The question stems from the decision of the Supreme Court of the State last year, stating that the Iowa Constitution requires people accused of crime and witnesses of the trial that testify against them to see each other. The decision has broken up in decades of how the US Supreme Court and other countries have dealt with the issue, according to Iowa Brena Bird General Prosecutor.
“We are the only country that came to this conclusion,” says Bird, Republican. “It is really important to protect children in court that children who have been traumatized may be able to testify beyond the presence of the person they may be very afraid of.”
The amendment will say that constitutional law “can be restricted by law” for certain witnesses: those under 18 years of age and those with mental illness, intellectual disability or other developmental disabilities.
Both legislative chambers will have to approve the measure again in 2027 or 2028 to place it before the voters in November 2028.
What is the sixth amendment?
The sixth amendment to the US Constitution determines the rights of the accused in prosecutors, indicating the right to a quick process, an impartial court hearing and, among other things, “to face witnesses against him.”
Iow’s Constitution, adopted in 1857, also determines the rights of the defendants of persons, including the same confrontation clause.
The US Supreme Court said in a 1990 decision, Maryland against Craig, that “the right to stand against the accusative witnesses can be satisfied with a lack of physical confrontation face -to -face” when remote testimony and can be provided reliably.
“Maryland’s interest in protecting witnesses from children from the trauma of a child abuse test is important enough to justify the use of his or her special procedure,” the decision said.
The bigger part of the courts across the country has complied with this decision of the Supreme Court, according to Colin Miller, Professor of Law of South Carolina.
The most common exception is when the state confrontation clause includes the words “face -to -face”. This explicit text prompted the Supreme Court in New Hampshire this year, for example, to say that the remote testimony of a 9-year-old girl violated the constitutional right of the defendant.
“To Iowa, ours – as practitioners and as a national agency – the operating assumption was that if he did not say” face -to -face “in the state constitution, they will obey Maryland against Craig,” says Meg Garvin, Executive Director of the National Institute of Crime at the Law School in Lewis and Clark.
Interpretation
Garwin refers to the decision of Iow’s Supreme Court last year, which overturned the sentences of a man accused of neglecting or abuse a child and child, causing bodily injuries. Two of his other children testified against him outside the courtroom, where they could not see the defendant.
The 1998 State Law has taken this exception to a minor protection “from trauma caused by a certificate in the defendant’s physical presence when this will violate the minor’s ability to communicate.” If the judge admits, the testimony of a minor can be broadcast on the jury and the defendant in the courtroom.
Iow’s confrontation clause does not specify a “face -to -face”, but the court stated that it violated its constitutional right to confrontation, with the declaration of the state constitution providing more protection for criminal accused than the Federal Constitution.
“When our constitution was adopted, a” confrontation “was understood, which included a face -to -face meeting,” the court said.
Protection of victims
Bird said her office wanted to guarantee the decision that the children were offered to protect the children “the test of time.”
It is supported by law enforcement agencies and district attorneys, as well as by various victim advocacy organizations, many of whom have told the legislators that justice is not served in Iowa if the children are forced to confront the abuser again or are afraid of telling their stories.
“The thing I sit with almost daily, definitely a week and fights my parents, is when they have to decide,” The price of justice is worth it for my child? “” Unfortunately, right now in Iowa the answer they often have is not. “
Debate on Defendant’s rights
The public opposition to the proposal is concentrated among the defense attorneys who cite examples of people who are wrongly blamed and say that these allowances for certain witnesses signal to the jurors that the defendant is guilty.
The existing law seems similar to the approach in many states, said Chris Welborne, President of the National Association of Criminal Protection Attorneys. But Welborne suggested that the change of the constitution was a slippery slope.
“They basically have fun with the sixth amendment,” he said. “I would say that this is a very dangerous way to descend, because when you start to say that we are exhausted to one’s confrontation rights, do we also take exceptions to their right to present protection?”
Bird said this law “works for years without dispute” and she does not seek further legislation.
But Wellborn’s concern was voiced by Republican State Reporter Charlie Thomson, who said the provisions “open door to the door for the future legislative authorities”.
State representative Stephen Holt acknowledged fears of constitutionality, but said Iow’s Supreme Court did not offer many opportunities.
“They dropped, but they didn’t really give any guidance on what we should do,” said Holt, a Republican. “We were left with an interesting puzzle as we were trying to protect the children in the courts against … We must be injured again.”