Ohio law states that at the request of the prosecutor a victim under 13 years of age at the time of an assault or offense on the child may give his/her testimony by deposition, videotaped or otherwise.
2006-06-10 20:35:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by James 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Since each element of the crime must be proved, and defenses negated, it would have to be an unusual fact situation that the only witness to the crime would not be called to testify.
In general a statement made outside of the court hearing is hearsay and can not be used at trial unless one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule applies.
Some states have created an exception to the hearsay rule for statements about a sexual crime made by the minor victim to specified persons, and will allow the statement at trial upon a showing that testimony at trial would traumatize the victim.
Other states allow the trial judge the discretion to have the minor testify without the defendant in the courtroom, or limit the cross examination of the minor in ways designed to reduce the victim's apprehension. Defense counsel generally agree to these measures -- if the five year old complaining witness starts to cry, a jury might consider that a reaction to being in the defendant's presence, and a sign of guilt.
The courts have read the 6th Amendment as allowing for exceptions to the hearsay rule, since many of the exceptions were in existence in 1789 and remained in effect after 1789. So if a state has a procedure by which a minor's prior statement can be used instead of live in-court testimony, it does not violate the 6th Amendment.
2006-06-10 17:37:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by shoshidad 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the only evidence is an accusation...then yes. Otherwise the case will probably be dropped. I don't think a minor can be forced to testify about a tramatic experience. Simply because it is tramatic. But if what the minor is accusing is the truth...someone needs to have a sit down talk with them about the importance of their testimony because if the case is dropped...more than likely the accused will just do it again to someone else. If it is the only evidence, I would think the case would be dropped. And if it goes to trial...more than likely the accused will not be convicted.
2006-06-10 16:33:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by zenkitty27 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
They would have to testify, especially if the evidence is limited. Some states allow the child to be in a separate room with a video feed so the child will feel more comfortable about testifying. Trying to get a child to testify about something that traumatic in front of a courtroom full of adult strangers is adding to the trauma, and is something that many states are now trying to address. I don't think it is a violation of the accused rights to face his accuser over a closed circuit video feed - this should be more to protect the rights of his victim, a child! Yeah, yeah, I know. ALLEGED victim... SHEESH!!!
2006-06-10 16:34:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. Boof 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
This has become a touchy (no pun intended) subject in the last few years. Like you said, the 6th amendment is on the line . Many judges have gone to using video conferencing to allow the victim to testify but not have to physically confront the accused to reduce the trauma involved in a legal proceeding. This has replaced the sworn statement process and trained professional opinions of the incident because it allows defence cross examination to a limited degree.
2006-06-10 16:31:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by xtowgrunt 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Everyone has a right to face their accussee. The minor could be called upon to testify.
2006-06-10 17:13:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I will have to look it up, but in most cases they have to testify. They usually clear the court room though!
It also depends on the states case. If they have DNA,police and medical testimony she may not. Most murder victims do not testify!
I have seen them use television!
2006-06-10 16:29:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends, if there is enof evidence without his testimony (another victim) then no but if there's not then yes.
2006-06-10 16:32:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Harley 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
did michael jackson touch u?
2006-06-10 16:26:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
they don't HAVE too.. but it helps
2006-06-10 16:26:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by melissa 6
·
0⤊
0⤋