State vs Constitutional Decisions

2510 Words11 Pages
Individual rights are a very crucial part of our United States constitution, because whether these rights are being provided towards a criminal defendant or a victim the goal of our national government is to provide the same level of rights adequately to all its citizens. From the time in which the new judicial federalism began up until now, these rights have been more and more in debate case after case both in federal and state courts. A good example to this fact is a comparison between 3 different cases that pertain to decisions from both state and federal court, these cases are Maryland v Craig, Pennsylvania v Ludwig, and Ohio v Self. These cases deal with the defendant’s right to confront witnesses when the witness is a child who is…show more content…
Craig then objected to the motion basing it on the confrontation clause but then the trial court rejected her, in which then the trial court allowed children to testify under statute, then Craig was convicted of all counts. Maryland court of last resort reversed and remanded for a new trial by rejecting Craig’s contention, but concluding that the 6th amendment’s confrontation clause guarantees face-to-face confrontation. For the statute to be invoked in the first place the defendant must have had a face-to-face with it’s accusers, and also that the state’s showing of expert testimony was insufficient in order to comply with regulations required in Coy v Iowa (1988), which was a similar case to this one but the main difference was that there was a curtain to conceal the child victim instead of a one-way closed circuit camera, therefore the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by not being provided that right. The case was then taken by Craig to the U.S. Supreme court. The constitutional question the U.S. Supreme court is addressing was whether the one-way closed-circuit testimony of a child witness who is alleged to be a victim of child abuse violates the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. Since the court determined that closed-circuit questioning met the fundamental purposes of the clause, (which in general are the right to personally examine the witness
Open Document