Here (thanks to Howard Bashman) is a recent opinion from the Eighth Circuit dealing with the Sixth Amendment’s right to a public trial. During the appellant’s trial on sex-abuse charges, the courtroom was cleared whenever the appellant’s alleged victims (ages 11 and 12) testified. In the court’s opinion, written by Judge Morris S. Arnold (for whom my wife clerked), there’s this:
The government implies in its brief that requiring children to testify in public in this kind of case could only expose them to voyeuristic or prurient interests. We believe that this argument is untenable. We have an open government, and secret trials are inimical to the spirit of a republic, especially when a citizen’s liberty is at stake. The public, in a way, is necessarily a party to every criminal case.
Judge Arnold’s brother, Judge Richard S. Arnold (for whom I clerked), was also a real stickler for defendants’ confrontation and public-trial rights. It was interesting for me, at the time, to see how — contrary to the expectations I’d developed in law school — the Judge’s Hugo Black-esque textualism on constitutional-criminal-procedure matters often moved him to “liberal” or defendant-friendly outcomes.
Posted by Rick Garnett on March 1, 2006 at 10:34 AM
» Sexualizing Victims And Offenders from Concurring Opinions Rick Garnett blogged yesterday about a recent Eighth Circuit opinion in a sex abuse case. The appellate court reversed a trial court’s decision to close the courtroom during testimony of children allegedly abused by the defendant. A particularly intere… [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 2, 2006 12:50:05 AM
» Sexualizing Victims And Offenders from Concurring Opinions Rick Garnett blogged yesterday about a recent Eighth Circuit opinion in a sex abuse case. The appellate court reversed a trial court’s decision to close the courtroom during testimony of children allegedly abused by the defendant. A particularly intere… [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 2, 2006 12:54:44 AM
» Sexualizing Victims And Offenders from Concurring Opinions Rick Garnett blogged yesterday about a recent Eighth Circuit opinion in a sex abuse case. The appellate court reversed a trial court’s decision to close the courtroom during testimony of children allegedly abused by the defendant. A particularly intere… [Read More]
Tracked on Mar 2, 2006 1:18:58 AM
Comments
Is there a constitutional right in American Idol to have all trials fit its time slot? After all, “[American Idol’s audience], in a way, is necessarily a party to every criminal case”.
Posted by: nk | Mar 1, 2006 10:21:49 PM
Yes, it seems to me too that a great deal of discretion should be alowed the trial judge in the case of young children. It also seems to me that the “right of a … public trial” is sufficiently satisfied by the court reporter and an unsealed record. Just how big a public is needed? Is there a constitutional right vested in the accused to require the audience of American Idol?
Posted by: nk | Mar 1, 2006 10:01:36 PM
There precedents for this. In Calif we have had children in similar cases testfy by closed circuit tv from another room in the courthouse for the same reason used in this case to clear the courtroom. Not sure how long ago-possibly 20 years ago. Have not done any recent research on this; am relying on memory only.
Posted by: John Judge | Mar 1, 2006 5:35:39 PM