Child Abuse Witness Protections Confront Crawford v. Washington

Abstract

cum laude, 2000, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana. Thank you to my husband, Chad, and my family and friends for their encouragement, to Professor Frank O. Bowman for his assistance in developing this topic, and especially to my daughter for patiently waiting to come into this world until after my final draft was complete. 1. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. 2. See Katherine W. Grearson, Note, Proposed Uniform Child Witness Testimony Act: An Impermissible Abridgement of Criminal Defendants’ Rights, 45 B.C. L. REV. 467, 468 (2004). 3. ROBERT H. MNOOKIN & D. KELLY WEISBERG, CHILD, FAMILY, AND STATE 479, 485-89 (4th ed. 2000). 4. See Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016 (1988) (“[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact.”). 5. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 857 (1990) (upholding statutory procedure allowing child witnesses in sexual abuse cases to testify by one-way closed circuit television); Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 826-27 (1990) (approving procedure under which the child declarant’s statements could be admitted if witness was unavailable and statement bore indicia of reliability but finding statement at issue was not supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness). 6. 541 U.S. 36 (2004). 7. Id. at 68-69 (barring admission of testimonial, out-of-court statements unless the witness is unavailable and defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine). CHILD ABUSE WITNESS PROTECTIONS CONFRONT CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON